what would you spend 369 million on?

[Hilltop Customs]

Well, as usual I cant sleep, so I'm flipping channels and happen to pop on PBS at just the right time when they are showing some info about gays in the military. Turns out this one guy is registered to a gay/lesbian forum, and he gets discharged because he described his sexuality as gay under his profile.

well that is the subplot, then something I find simply disgusting pops up, over 369 MILLION DOLLARS have been spent by the government to find/discharge/replace US Army soldiers who are gay/lesbian.

After seeing that there are 3 things that bug the hell out of me:

1)Maybe i'm just confused, but when did these people lose the right to fight for and protect their country?

2)Many of the soldiers who are discharged, their superiors and fellow soldiers had NO idea(like the guy in the initial story). So how could their sexuality have ANY impact on their, or their fellow soldiers?

3)369 MILLION spent solely for the purpose to exclude people based on their sexuality......all while supposedly fighting for "freedom" :tard: so when did gays/lesbians loose their freedom?



I prefer tan women, does that make me different from a guy who prefers white pasty women? what about a guy who prefers other tan guys?

[bornl33t]

This thread is full of hear say, not so factual "fact" and liberal sensationalism.

I call this thread gay until links are posted from a credible news source. Because with all the liberal bias in the news if they don't report it, it's probably not true.


IN other news a substancial amount of uranium has been found in Iraq.

[questionful]

America is a hypocrite. First they take the indians' land. Then they send them to concentration camps. Then they enslave black people. Then they don't let gay people be gay? Geez. Home of the free seems a little exaggerated.

[MoeMag]

IN other news a substancial amount of uranium has been found in Iraq.


Too bad that thread didnt last the night.

[Hilltop Customs]

I will admit the "fact" (the dollar amount) was just from the show, I didnt research it, but then again I'm not writing a thesis on it am I? All I did was put up a post in a discussion board about it to see peoples reactions. I did get the exact reaction I was expecting though....kind of odd.

IMO the "fact" that your referring to doesnt really matter, be it $1 spent to find/remove gays in the military, that $1 which could seved a much better purpose.

I'm not bothering to look up any links for you, because if you had any interest in the matter you would do it yourself. I'm not looking up links for myself, because in my mind finding links wont change a single thing. It was just something i saw on tv and felt like discussing....if thats "gay" in your opinion so be it.

Since you are so well versed with the use of the word liberal, I'd imagine you know the definition by heart:

lib·er·al Audio Help /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Pr
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

I love how people try to use the word liberal to degrade people. It honestly doesnt look that bad to me. I dont accept being called a liberal because I dont enjoy being grouped up with others and have my opinion limited. I feel bad for people who feel the need to associated with others opinions, and therefore have to limit their own opinion to keep from being ostracized by others.



mods delete this post/thread if you see fit, I'd delete it if I could. Its now obvious to me attempting to have a discussion on such a heated topic is futile.




edit(this was in response to bornl33t, didnt see the other responses)

[Hilltop Customs]

Too bad that thread didnt last the night.

I wonder where threads go when they die? I bet this one will soon be find out

[ThePixelGuru]

Plus they canned a bunch of fluent Arabic speakers because they were gay, and now they don't have enough Arabic speakers to translate all the intelligence they're gathering. There's a bunch of Arabic documents and recordings that our government has but doesn't know anything about because they're waiting for a heterosexual to get around to translating it. :rolleyes:

bornl33t, would it really be news to you that the government is throwing away a crapload of money on unnecessary military stuff like weeding out gays while still not buying useful stuff like armor to protect our troops? That must be one big dark rock you've been hiding under.

[MANN]

sounds like money well spent.

[Hilltop Customs]

sounds like money well spent.

i wonder if you say that because you hate gay people and dont want them to represent your country....or if you love gay people and dont want them to die in the war

[MANN]

i wonder if you say that because you hate gay people and dont want them to represent your country....or if you love gay people and dont want them to die in the war

:rofl: I just wish I could decide.

[wetwrks]

How is this any different than being told you cannot have tatoo's in the military, joining, then running out and getting one and then getting kicked out?

Not at all.

Don't ask, don't tell.

[michbich]

I don't see why it's such a big deal in the first place. What is the main argument against having gays in the army?

[Hilltop Customs]

tattoo= choice gay=sexuality

it would be a choice if they went around flaunting it like a gay pride parade 24/7, but the soldier's comrades in the interview had NO idea, neither did his captain, or anyone else in his unit.

Should a soldier that doesnt ask and doesnt tell still be discharged if they happen to post on a gay forum? So not only are the limited with their communication with fellow soldiers(because of dont as dont tell), they are now completely restricted in their entire lifestyle....is that right? I realize people give up some freedoms when entering the military, but is it right to ask someone to give up that much when serving our country?

thanks wetwrks for providing an argument instead of just stating liberal and moving on. I was hoping we would actually be able to discuss a topic instead of flaming over it.

[MANN]

tattoo= choice gay=sexuality


So you are defining that your sexuality is not a choice?

If so that is a HUGE statement.

[Hilltop Customs]

I don't see why it's such a big deal in the first place. What is the main argument against having gays in the army?

thats kindof one of the topics I hoped this would lead to. I think it mostly is because people in general have some apprehension toward gay people. Especially in situations where you are forced in close proximity with your peers....like the military. Another is the simple fact that the military represents the US, and some people feel that having homosexuals in the military is some form of bad representation. I honestly cant tell you because I really dont have a problem if ANYONE wants to serve in the military....anyone else want to chime in on this?

[bornl33t]

Let me help.

Click on the edit button. And let the page load.
Next check the box that is labed "click here to delete thread"
Finally click the button that says "submit"

It may be rough instructions but it should accomplish what we both want.

There are two sides to every story, the TV will give you one, the other side well... isn't so obvious

[michbich]

So you are defining that your sexuality is not a choice?

If so that is a HUGE statement.
So your saying that you choose to be hetero? So tomorrow can you decide to change your mind?

[MANN]

So your saying that you choose to be hetero? So tomorrow can you decide to change your mind?

I believe so. If I decided to.

Are you stating that people are not in control of their sexual preference?

[wetwrks]

tattoo= choice gay=sexuality

it would be a choice if they went around flaunting it like a gay pride parade 24/7, but the soldier's comrades in the interview had NO idea, neither did his captain, or anyone else in his unit.

thanks wetwrks for providing an argument instead of just stating liberal and moving on. I was hoping we would actually be able to discuss a topic instead of flaming over it.

I would say he technically did go around flaunting it.


Turns out this one guy is registered to a gay/lesbian forum

And someone had to aware of it otherwise he would still be in the military.

I also don't buy the "no choice" thing. Even if it is genetic, that doesn't make it acceptable. They (science) have found a genetic link for alcoholism. Must we accept that as an acceptable lifestyle (including driving drunk and all)? Same with a propensity towards spousal abuse and rape. What happens when (not if) they find a genetic propensity for pedafilia? Do we now have to accept that as a valid lifestyle?

Sorry but I cannot agree with that line of logic.

[Hilltop Customs]

So you are defining that your sexuality is not a choice?

If so that is a HUGE statement.

IDK, ive honestly never had any homosexual feeling towards my friends......so I dont see my sexuality as a choice....its just the way I am.

is it a choice that I like spaghetti pizza? No, it just tastes so yummy(to me). And I'm sure there are people out there in the world who hate spaghetti pizza, is it their choice that they dont like it? I dont have any qualms with people who dont like spaghetti pizza, because I know there is more for me if they dont want any.

[wetwrks]

So your saying that you choose to be hetero? So tomorrow can you decide to change your mind?


Actually there are a great many gays who chose to leave that lifestyle and get married to the opposite sex and say they are much happier.

[Hilltop Customs]

Let me help.

Click on the edit button. And let the page load.
Next check the box that is labed "click here to delete thread"
Finally click the button that says "submit"

It may be rough instructions but it should accomplish what we both want.

There are two sides to every story, the TV will give you one, the other side well... isn't so obvious

I was ready to delete the thread after you posted, because there was no real discussion your post could lead to. Now there are people posting who show some type of interest to the thread, therefore it will stay unless mods feel it should be gone.

[Hilltop Customs]

Actually there are a great many gays who chose to leave that lifestyle and get married to the opposite sex and say they are much happier.

but is the happiness because of their new association with the opposite sex, or because they are no longer a "freak" in societies view? thats an important question, but there is no real way to answer it

[MANN]

IDK, ive honestly never had any homosexual feeling towards my friends......so I dont see my sexuality as a choice....its just the way I am.



I have debated this topic hundreds of thousands of times, and I have some gay people in my direct family

my .02 is
If no one chooses their sexuality then that would define for me that people don't choose the fetishes that they are in. (whatever that might be)

IMO if you allow that to slide by it would also include pedifiles (sp). After all they did not choose to like little children.

If my employer said that I need not run at work then I will not run. If my employer stated that I need not be gay then so be it. There is a place and time for everything. The army is not one of those places. If they want to be gay when they are out go for it. I completely understand the reason for not putting a gay guy in a platoon of straight men. Not only will it cause some people to be uncomfortable, but it would be unsafe for the gay person. Regardless how you look at it it is probally easier to spend 360 million than dealing with gay groups after someone hangs a gay person for making a pass on him/her.

It may not be right, but it is the right way to do it.

[wetwrks]

but is the happiness because of their new association with the opposite sex, or because they are no longer a "freak" in societies view? thats an important question, but there is no real way to answer it

Or are they simply happier with life in general? Does it really matter? They chose apple pie over cherry and decided they like life better that way. A choice.

[MANN]

going back to work on the ep sleeper mag. After this is closed if you want to discuss/debate some more we can take it to beo. :cheers:

[wetwrks]

going back to work on the ep sleeper mag. After this is closed if you want to discuss/debate some more we can take it to beo. :cheers:

LOL

[Hilltop Customs]

I would say he technically did go around flaunting it.



And someone had to aware of it otherwise he would still be in the military.

I also don't buy the "no choice" thing. Even if it is genetic, that doesn't make it acceptable. They (science) have found a genetic link for alcoholism. Must we accept that as an acceptable lifestyle (including driving drunk and all)? Same with a propensity towards spousal abuse and rape. What happens when (not if) they find a genetic propensity for pedafilia? Do we now have to accept that as a valid lifestyle?

Sorry but I cannot agree with that line of logic.

If there is really some genetic link, how is it passed down to children. anything that limits reproduction will eventually become dormant in genes.

side story...humans were all lactose intolerant years ago, then we started drinking dairy. The very few people who could digest dairy lived longer and had a greater probability of having kids. The kids could digest diary since it was in their genes, so they in turn lived lived longer and had more kids....rinse and repeat and now about ~80% of people can effectively digest dairy products.

So if homosexual tendencies are really genetic, since homosexuals are less likely to reproduce(not saying they cant, but are less likely....more likely to adopt counts) they would or will likely become dormant.

I'm not saying that it cant be in some ways genetic, but I think it has more to do with history, childhood, friends, and general upbringing.

[wetwrks]

The other side of this is that if their contract specifies don't ask, don't tell, then they have broken contract. If the military is spending massive amounts of money to remove these individuals then they should be responsible for those costs. They would be held responsible were it some other breach of contract.

[Drachen]

IDK, ive honestly never had any homosexual feeling towards my friends......so I dont see my sexuality as a choice....its just the way I am.

OR...
Maybe you have ugly friends? Just because you are attracted to the female gender, does that mean you're attracted to every single woman on the face of the Earth? Doubtful.


I also don't buy the "no choice" thing. Even if it is genetic, that doesn't make it acceptable. They (science) have found a genetic link for alcoholism. Must we accept that as an acceptable lifestyle (including driving drunk and all)? Same with a propensity towards spousal abuse and rape. What happens when (not if) they find a genetic propensity for pedafilia? Do we now have to accept that as a valid lifestyle?

Sorry but I cannot agree with that line of logic.

Exactly.


Now don't get me wrong, I don't neccisarily believe that they should kick gay people out of the military, simply for being gay. Though even as you said, Hilltop, the guy in the story you were talking about had, in a way, gone around flaunting the fact that he was. Even though it's VERY well known when it comes to the whole dispute between the military, and gays. Yet he still decided to let it be known that he's gay. What do you expect? That's basically asking for trouble. Even though he didn't go directly out, and tell everyone he's gay.

Besides, why are you getting so bent out of shape about this? Surely if the military really did spend 369 Million on this subject, you'd think they probably would have "wasted" money else where. Especially on things that matters more than whether or not gays are allowed in the Military. It's silly to get into an argument over things like this. Honestly, you're doing somewhat the same thing the guy in the military did, stirring up a hornets nest. Whether or not that's you're intention, you should've realized this post was going sour after the first couple of posts. Politics, Religion, and now Sexuality is things, most of the time, better left alone. Believe what you want, it gives you no right to try and push your beliefs on to others.

[michbich]

I'm not going to debate on the comparaison between pedophiles and gays because that example is just immoral. It's like comparing " should a man and a snake be able to get married" with gay marrage.

However, I do understand your point about gays making the rest of the group uncomfortable. I guess it's a question on where to draw the line. Because if you think about it, why should women be allowed in the army, they could also make the rest of the unit uncomfortable.

But why do we fight it so much? It will get accepted in the long run anyways. Wether we're in favor of it or not.

[Hilltop Customs]

I have debated this topic hundreds of thousands of times, and I have some gay people in my direct family

my .02 is
If no one chooses their sexuality then that would define for me that people don't choose the fetishes that they are in. (whatever that might be)

IMO if you allow that to slide by it would also include pedifiles (sp). After all they did not choose to like little children.

If my employer said that I need not run at work then I will not run. If my employer stated that I need not be gay then so be it. There is a place and time for everything. The army is not one of those places. If they want to be gay when they are out go for it. I completely understand the reason for not putting a gay guy in a platoon of straight men. Not only will it cause some people to be uncomfortable, but it would be unsafe for the gay person. Regardless how you look at it it is probally easier to spend 360 million than dealing with gay groups after someone hangs a gay person for making a pass on him/her.

It may not be right, but it is the right way to do it.

thats a tough one. I understand how you linked sexuality and fetishes...but thats a big jump to pedophiles. Even in ancient Greece where just about anything sexual was accepted, (even more than accepted, commonplace) there was a line drawn at adolescence. If a boy could not grow a beard, he was not accepted into the mentor-student(homosexual) apprenticeship. IDK if there was something similar for girls, but I would imagine there would be an age limit. IMO there is just something morally wrong with pedophiles, because there is only one consenting party, homosexualism(sp?) on the other hand both parties are fully consenting.

I understand what your saying about employers and following the rules, but I see the armed forces as more than just an employer(and they represent themselves as more too) I believe any person(within reason) should have the right to support/protect their country if they choose to. They may have to give up some freedoms(dont ask dont tell) but if someone(government) is actively investigating into a persons sexuality, isnt that breaking the dont ask dont tell rule?

[MANN]

thats a tough one. I understand how you linked sexuality and fetishes...but thats a big jump to pedophiles.
isnt a pedophile just another fetish? A sexual preference? Something to get your rocks off?

[wetwrks]

thats a tough one. I understand how you linked sexuality and fetishes...but thats a big jump to pedophiles. Even in ancient Greece where just about anything sexual was accepted, (even more than accepted, commonplace) there was a line drawn at adolescence. If a boy could not grow a beard, he was not accepted into the mentor-student(homosexual) apprenticeship. IDK if there was something similar for girls, but I would imagine there would be an age limit. IMO there is just something morally wrong with pedophiles, because there is only one consenting party, homosexualism(sp?) on the other hand both parties are fully consenting.

I understand what your saying about employers and following the rules, but I see the armed forces as more than just an employer(and they represent themselves as more too) I believe any person(within reason) should have the right to support/protect their country if they choose to. They may have to give up some freedoms(dont ask dont tell) but if someone(government) is actively investigating into a persons sexuality, isnt that breaking the dont ask dont tell rule?

Last week, Colorado’s legislature passed—and Gov. Bill Ritter signed—a law that will open all public accommodations, including public restrooms, to anyone who wants to use them. That means men may use a women’s restroom, and women may enter men’s rooms. The rationale for Senate Bill 200 is that transgenders should be able to use the restroom they feel most comfortable using. Apparently, it is not important if others feel uncomfortable having their privacy violated every time they use public facilities.

The lack of privacy is not the only problem. Nobody is going to ask a man if he is trangendered before allowing him into the ladies’ room. This means any man—including a child molester—could simply follow a little girl into the privacy of a public restroom. And, if a man decided to expose himself to a young girl there, who is she going to complain to? After all, restrooms, by definition, are places where one exposes the private parts of one’s body.

Years ago my father stated that this is all just a stepping stone for the true goal of pedophiles. First get sexual preferences recognized as being out of bounds for morality - now men can use the restrooms with little girls. Even show themselves to little girls and there is nothing that the police can do about it. It all ties together in the end. Once sexual preference is out of bounds then everything is allowed.

[Hilltop Customs]

OR...
Now don't get me wrong, I don't neccisarily believe that they should kick gay people out of the military, simply for being gay. Though even as you said, Hilltop, the guy in the story you were talking about had, in a way, gone around flaunting the fact that he was. Even though it's VERY well known when it comes to the whole dispute between the military, and gays. Yet he still decided to let it be known that he's gay. What do you expect? That's basically asking for trouble. Even though he didn't go directly out, and tell everyone he's gay.

Besides, why are you getting so bent out of shape about this? Surely if the military really did spend 369 Million on this subject, you'd think they probably would have "wasted" money else where. Especially on things that matters more than whether or not gays are allowed in the Military. It's silly to get into an argument over things like this. Honestly, you're doing somewhat the same thing the guy in the military did, stirring up a hornets nest. Whether or not that's you're intention, you should've realized this post was going sour after the first couple of posts. Politics, Religion, and now Sexuality is things, most of the time, better left alone. Believe what you want, it gives you no right to try and push your beliefs on to others.

my bad for not mentioning it earlier, but from the way the situation was described, the guy in the story had signed up to the forum before joining the military...and they made no mention if he was using it at the time he was "discovered" I think they said he was still in the closet and hadent told his family.

I'm not getting bent out of shape, I just wanted to start a discussion. I just thought it is hypocritical of the military to do something like that. I'm not trying to push anything on anyone, I'm not even sure what I would be pushing onto people? Sorry if I came off forceful in my opinions, I'm an engineer, it just kinda comes out that way.



MANN....a fetish everyone involved agrees, even in the most extreme there are safe words and such to protect the people involeved....rape and pedophiles are way past a fetish, they dont require and dont want the other parties consent.

[MANN]

I understand what your saying about employers and following the rules, but I see the armed forces as more than just an employer(and they represent themselves as more too) I believe any person(within reason) should have the right to support/protect their country if they choose to. They may have to give up some freedoms(dont ask dont tell) but if someone(government) is actively investigating into a persons sexuality, isnt that breaking the dont ask dont tell rule?

I know that some companies actively search/investigate their employees online. A big one is school systems. They actively search myspace/facebook to insure the behavior is acceptable. I know our county's teachers are not allowed to have either that are not "private".

Is it an invasion of privicy? possibly? Is it their policy? yep. If you want to do it a different way find another employer.

The us army is an employer. they pay people to do a job. nothing more nothing less.

[bornl33t]

great :rolleyes:

Ok, well here's food for though, would you let a child sex offender serve our country? Homosexuality is a fetish. It's not productive, it's people that are so obsesed with the though that they practise it. No different then all the other fetishes out there. Notice the similarities with nambla or cross dressers? They all want to be able to live their fetish in the open.

If gays are allowed in the Army, all restrictions should be put aside. We are this worlds predominant super power. We are like the police to society. Other countries watch us. Some want us dead, others are jealous of us because they want to be us. Most reasonson aren't valid but in the end our position voluntary or involuntary forces us to be better then the best. Slight slip ups become a huge deal, other countries will cry "don't tase me bro". ( the teasering was justified IMO for the record)

IMO the don't ask don't tell policy is a great solution to keeping integrity without pissing off America. But there are alway a few little ingrates out there that have to stir the pot. It's their way or the highway. They are not content with majority rule, they get a judge to over turn the will of the people because they are greater then America as a whole. America is sucuming to the fate of all great societies before us. Once our core values are cirumvented we will cease to be America.

[MANN]

MANN....a fetish everyone involved agrees, even in the most extreme there are safe words and such to protect the people involeved....rape and pedophiles are way past a fetish, they dont require and dont want the other parties consent.

OK so what if both parties consent. my drafting teacher in high school (one who also played paintball with everyone) slept with a 15 yr old girl. She consented. More than once.

My oppinion is that everyone has self control. You control your actions. If your employer says "dont be happy", "dont be loud", "dont be gay" the employee should either find other employment that allows for this, or understand that the employer has the right to terminate the employee.

[wetwrks]

MANN....a fetish everyone involved agrees, even in the most extreme there are safe words and such to protect the people involeved....rape and pedophiles are way past a fetish, they dont require and dont want the other parties consent.

Um, I disagree with you. The other side doesn't have to agree. If a man has a fetish for blondes, do all blondes have to like or want his attention?

[bornl33t]

I'm not going to debate on the comparaison between pedophiles and gays because that example is just immoral. It's like comparing " should a man and a snake be able to get married" with gay marrage.

However, I do understand your point about gays making the rest of the group uncomfortable. I guess it's a question on where to draw the line. Because if you think about it, why should women be allowed in the army, they could also make the rest of the unit uncomfortable.

But why do we fight it so much? It will get accepted in the long run anyways. Wether we're in favor of it or not.

Here in lies the problem. By what standart is pedophilia immoral? Society? Well society once said that homosexuality was wrong. And now look? What are another 20 years going to do? Society is a bad standart, it's constantly changing.

[wetwrks]

my bad for not mentioning it earlier, but from the way the situation was described, the guy in the story had signed up to the forum before joining the military...and they made no mention if he was using it at the time he was "discovered" I think they said he was still in the closet and hadent told his family.

I will bet (no, I don't know for certain) that he signed onto the forum from a military computer. And, being the military, they will and do monitor all transmissions in and out of those computers for the security of military secrets. this would be my guess as to how he got "caught".

[bornl33t]

I will bet (no, I don't know for certain) that he signed onto the forum from a military computer. And, being the military, they will and do monitor all transmissions in and out of those computers for the security of military secrets. this would be my guess as to how he got "caught".

....the reeeeeeeeest of the story...

I'll go one step further and say he was looking at gay porn and they fired him for that and his story was that be was fired for being gay.

[wetwrks]

Here in lies the problem. By what standard is pedophilia immoral? Society? Well society once said that homosexuality was wrong. And now look? What are another 20 years going to do? Society is a bad standard, it's constantly changing. Edited

And that is exactly it. Right and wrong doesn't change. You cannot base morality on society.

[Hilltop Customs]

OK so what if both parties consent. my drafting teacher in high school (one who also played paintball with everyone) slept with a 15 yr old girl. She consented. More than once.

My oppinion is that everyone has self control. You control your actions. If your employer says "dont be happy", "dont be loud", "dont be gay" the employee should either find other employment that allows for this, or understand that the employer has the right to terminate the employee.

IDK, we had a similar situation in my hometown. Baseball coach took kids home with him, watched porn and molested a couple. Dont know if they consented or not, but thats why the law is there to protect minors....consent by the young person or not its statutory rape.

I just dont believe the army=any other employment. They advertise themselves as more, they should accept the responsibility that some people will fight for the right to protect their country....even if they are homosexuals.



sorry for getting a discussion going then leaving it, but I got to go, hopefully the thread will be here when I get back.


thanks everyone for keeping the flames limited lol

[bornl33t]

And that is exactly it. Right and wrong doesn't change. You cannot base morality on society.


Bingo- (thread killer comming up) this is why the bible is the first thing gays try to discredit.


Religious or not, the bible is death to this type of argument.

[wetwrks]

then leaving it, but I got to go, hopefully the thread will be here when I get back.


thanks everyone for keeping the flames limited lol

Oh yah, stir the pot and then just walk away. :D

[wetwrks]

Bingo- (thread killer comming up) this is why the bible is the first thing gays try to discredit.


Religious or not, the bible is death to this type of argument.

i tried not to say it. :D

[Hilltop Customs]

ok i hit refresh to see if there was any replies........could we kill the bible talk, at least dont try to get the thread trashed while i'm gone, I would like to see if theres any replies. good luck hiding this thread from the mods :ninja:

[wetwrks]

ok i hit refresh to see if there was any replies........could we kill the bible talk, at least dont try to get the thread trashed while i'm gone, I would like to see if theres any replies. good luck hiding this thread from the mods :ninja:

LOL.

[ThePixelGuru]

I also don't buy the "no choice" thing. Even if it is genetic, that doesn't make it acceptable. They (science) have found a genetic link for alcoholism. Must we accept that as an acceptable lifestyle (including driving drunk and all)? Same with a propensity towards spousal abuse and rape. What happens when (not if) they find a genetic propensity for pedafilia? Do we now have to accept that as a valid lifestyle?

Sorry but I cannot agree with that line of logic.

If no one chooses their sexuality then that would define for me that people don't choose the fetishes that they are in. (whatever that might be)

IMO if you allow that to slide by it would also include pedifiles (sp). After all they did not choose to like little children.

If my employer said that I need not run at work then I will not run. If my employer stated that I need not be gay then so be it. There is a place and time for everything. The army is not one of those places. If they want to be gay when they are out go for it. I completely understand the reason for not putting a gay guy in a platoon of straight men. Not only will it cause some people to be uncomfortable, but it would be unsafe for the gay person. Regardless how you look at it it is probally easier to spend 360 million than dealing with gay groups after someone hangs a gay person for making a pass on him/her.

It may not be right, but it is the right way to do it.
You're both missing the point, though. Pedophiles want to have sex with little kids too young to consent and alcoholics want to drive around drunk and risk crashing into people while gay people just want to have relationships with other consenting adults. The difference is that the first two harm other people while the last one is just people happily living their lives. None of them are choices, but only some of them are worth stopping. Only the actions that hurt other people are worth preventing, that's why the government is justified in telling people not to rape little kids or drive drunk but not justified in telling them not to have relationships with consenting adults of the same gender.

There's no way people can just change who they are in the military - that's why they don't tell the women who join "don't ask, don't tell." It's just that sexuality is a mental difference while gender is a physical one, so gays are expected to hide it.

[wetwrks]

You're both missing the point, though. Pedophiles want to have sex with little kids too young to consent and alcoholics want to drive around drunk and risk crashing into people while gay people just want to have relationships with other consenting adults. The difference is that the first two harm other people while the last one is just people happily living their lives. None of them are choices, but only some of them are worth stopping. Only the actions that hurt other people are worth preventing, that's why the government is justified in telling people not to rape little kids or drive drunk but not justified in telling them not to have relationships with consenting adults of the same gender.

There's no way people can just change who they are in the military - that's why they don't tell the women who join "don't ask, don't tell." It's just that sexuality is a mental difference while gender is a physical one, so gays are expected to hide it.

But that is exactly the point. If it is genetics (and they have no choice but to be what they are) then all of these cannot help it and society has to accept it or chose not to accept it.

If it is choice then they have the choice to either uphold the "don't ask, don't tell" or lose their job per the contract they willingly signed.

[michbich]

3, 2 ,1 ... and the thread gooes poof!!!

[kosmo]

This thread was doomed long before I posted.

[questionful]

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.

Anyone here disagree with this, besides the fact that all men and women are created equal?

Gay people are gay. As long as their gayness does not intrude on anyone else's pursuit of happiness*, it is their unalienable right to be gay. IMO, the army is "destructive of this end" as the preamble puts it. Thus, it is my opinion that it is the people's right to alter the army's power. IMO, it should be illegal to discriminate against gay people.

* discomfort to hetero males is too ridiculous to be considered such, imo

[ThePixelGuru]

But that is exactly the point. If it is genetics (and they have no choice but to be what they are) then all of these cannot help it and society has to accept it or chose not to accept it.

If it is choice then they have the choice to either uphold the "don't ask, don't tell" or lose their job per the contract they willingly signed.
But in this circumstance society made a bad choice when it lumped a victimless lifestyle in with acts that harm others.

[MANN]

That statement is even more ignorant than your previous ones. There is a point to be made there, but you screwed it up completely because youre an idiot. There is a lot more to being in the military than just doing a job, and any of the other veterans on here will back me up on that.

if working for the armed forces is not a job then please define job.

My definition is person A doing work for person B, and person B paying person A in some fashion or another. Usually with usd in America.

Google defines it as: occupation: the principal activity in your life that you do to earn money.

Is it an honorable job, yes. Do you get more out of it than money (Ie respect, honor, integrety), yes. Regardless how you roll the dice it still is a JOB.

A firefighter is still a job
A policeman is still a job
A teacher is still a job
A burger flipper is still a job

My point is that the United States Armed Forces are an employer. They should be allowed to set standards that their "Employees" have to meet. If they allow anyone to do anything, and pay them then it is a charity.

If the Army wants to say "We dont want people to smoke" or "We dont want guys to hit on other guys" or "We want everyone ready at 6am" it is their right to do so.

There are too many people in Americia that believe that they have the right to do whatever they want. I personally dont care what or how they do it. Just dont ask the majority of the rest of us to change our way of doing things to allot for the 3-4% of outcast.

[MANN]

You're both missing the point, though. Pedophiles want to have sex with little kids too young to consent and alcoholics want to drive around drunk and risk crashing into people while gay people just want to have relationships with other consenting adults.

The point I am making is that if we define our sexuality as a "god given" or something we are born with then it will cause havoc.

A pedophile will be allowed to say "Its not my fault I was born this way" the same way a gay person can say "Its not my fault I was born this way".

We cannot prove either is or is not the case. I think it is very dangerous especially in todays society to push that envelope. Not to jump topics, but who would have ever thought that 4 out of 5 of our justices would have tried to rewrite the second amendment.

Maybe I am over thinking it, but it seems the americian way to allow someone to get a foot in a loop hole to allow everyone else in. Suing because coffee is too hot, suing because a pickle burn my lip , suing because I am overweight and broke a toilet seat.

I dont want to live in an America where we allow everyone to use the "Its not my fault I was born this way" defense

As long as our sexuality is a personal choice it should be allowed to be discouraged to be shown in any workplace.

[questionful]

They should be allowed to set standards that their "Employees" have to meet.
If the Army wants to say "We dont want people to smoke" or "We dont want guys to hit on other guys" or "We want everyone ready at 6am" it is their right to do so.
Not necessarily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII


There are too many people in Americia that believe that they have the right to do whatever they want. I personally dont care what or how they do it. Just dont ask the majority of the rest of us to change our way of doing things to allot for the 3-4% of outcast.
How would someone's gayness change your way of doing things?
Both parties, gay and hetero, should be able to pursue happiness without infringing on the other's ability to do the same.


The point I am making is that if we define our sexuality as a "god given" or something we are born with then it will cause havoc.

A pedophile will be allowed to say "Its not my fault I was born this way" the same way a gay person can say "Its not my fault I was born this way".
Let's say for the sake of argument that a pedophile is born that way. That isn't his/her fault. And he is allowed to think whatever nasty things he likes to think about. BUT as soon as he chooses to act on his thoughts, ie, molests a child or what not, then he is affecting another person(s)'s ability to pursue happiness, and THAT is not allowed.


As long as our sexuality is a personal choice it should be allowed to be discouraged to be shown in any workplace.
I don't think gay people choose to be gay. Some choose to act hetero, but that is usually because it is very hard to be gay, with everyone hating them and stuff. Just look at yourself, you've at least once called someone gay in this thread, as a way to insult them. There is nothing wrong with being gay. I personally don't find other guys attractive, and yeah I do think certain aspects of gayness are nasty, but so what? It's none of my business, people can do whatever awful stuff they want, and as long as it doesn't affect me, they can have at it!

[Hilltop Customs]

The point I am making is that if we define our sexuality as a "god given" or something we are born with then it will cause havoc.

A pedophile will be allowed to say "Its not my fault I was born this way" the same way a gay person can say "Its not my fault I was born this way".

We cannot prove either is or is not the case. I think it is very dangerous especially in todays society to push that envelope. Not to jump topics, but who would have ever thought that 4 out of 5 of our justices would have tried to rewrite the second amendment.

Maybe I am over thinking it, but it seems the americian way to allow someone to get a foot in a loop hole to allow everyone else in. Suing because coffee is too hot, suing because a pickle burn my lip , suing because I am overweight and broke a toilet seat.

I dont want to live in an America where we allow everyone to use the "Its not my fault I was born this way" defense

As long as our sexuality is a personal choice it should be allowed to be discouraged to be shown in any workplace.

Ok, let me take a stab at this.
Your missing the significant difference that rape(any age) and molestation both produce victims and are considered crimes. For rape to have occurred, one party did not consent(or was under age, therefore cannot make the decision to consent). Now if both parties are of legal age and consent, no crime has been committed. Homosexuals are of legal age and are consenting, so there genetics are not a factor in the legality of the relationship, or the legality of rape or anything else. It doesnt matter what caused them to be gay, or rapists....one committed a crime and produced a non-consenting victim, the other didnt.

[Hilltop Customs]

Oh and sexuality is allowed to be discouraged to be shown in the workplace, both in hetero and homosexual relationships....its when you step up to firing people based on there sexuality that a line becomes crossed. For example, what would it take to fire a hetero couple for desplay of sexuality in the office? and now for the homosexual couple? If there is a difference @ those two points, then that is were equality is not being met....and as questionful reminded us "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

anyhow I guess that should apply to the military too.








Coming next week: The debate over medical marijuana :rofl:

[ThePixelGuru]

The point I am making is that if we define our sexuality as a "god given" or something we are born with then it will cause havoc.

A pedophile will be allowed to say "Its not my fault I was born this way" the same way a gay person can say "Its not my fault I was born this way".

We cannot prove either is or is not the case. I think it is very dangerous especially in todays society to push that envelope. Not to jump topics, but who would have ever thought that 4 out of 5 of our justices would have tried to rewrite the second amendment.

Maybe I am over thinking it, but it seems the americian way to allow someone to get a foot in a loop hole to allow everyone else in. Suing because coffee is too hot, suing because a pickle burn my lip , suing because I am overweight and broke a toilet seat.

I dont want to live in an America where we allow everyone to use the "Its not my fault I was born this way" defense

As long as our sexuality is a personal choice it should be allowed to be discouraged to be shown in any workplace.
And our response to pedophiles who say "it's not my fault I was born this way" should be "that's too bad, it hurts kids" while our response to gays who say "it's not my fault I was born this way" should be "that's ok, it doesn't hurt anyone." The difference is that pedophiles have relationships with children too young to give informed consent while gays have relationships with fully functional, logically thinking adults.

As far as employers asking employees not to be gay, that's not how it works. Employers can't ask their employees to be male or to be white, why should they be able to ask them to be heterosexual? Sexuality is not a choice - homosexual men's brains have been proven to be similar to women, there are proven genes that increase the likelihood of being gay (as does being a younger sibling), and scientists have even managed to flip a single fruit fly gene to get gay flies. The evidence just keeps piling up. Wait a few years and I bet we'll be able to figure out someone's sexuality based entirely on DNA.

EDIT: Of course, it shouldn't surprise me that people still can't accept homosexuality. After all, some states still have laws against sexual positions other than missionary...

[questionful]

and as questionful reminded us "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

anyhow I guess that should apply to the military too.
I meant that it should be made illegal under federal law to discriminate against sexuality, in which case the army would have to follow the law like everyone else.

[wetwrks]

But in this circumstance society made a bad choice when it lumped a victimless lifestyle in with acts that harm others.

Ok, 2 days ago I had a "fellow" who was obviously hitting on me. I don't appreciate it and shouldn't have to put up with it. But he wouldn't stop even when I made it very obvious that I wasn't interrested. If it were a male/female situation she would dump a drink on him or slap him. Were I to react in any similar negative way I would be charged with a hate crime based on his sexuality. (Don't say it wouldn't happen because I can point out news articles that it has happened).

It is exactly this type of situation that the military is trying to prevent.

[MANN]

Coming next week: The debate over medical marijuana :rofl:

lol.

Both of you make very valid points. I think on this one we will have to agree to disagree.

IMO keeping a dont ask dont tell policy with not allowing gays in the army is good. It allows guys to be guys. You dont have to have separate showers. You dont have to have separate rooms. The majority of men in the army are straight, and if it makes them uncomfortable then why cause it. (after all it is their "right to happiness")

When in Rome do as the Romans.

When in the Army be a man. If someone is gay and wants to serve our country fine. Just dont let anyone know you are gay.

[ThePixelGuru]

Ok, 2 days ago I had a "fellow" who was obviously hitting on me. I don't appreciate it and shouldn't have to put up with it. But he wouldn't stop even when I made it very obvious that I wasn't interrested. If it were a male/female situation she would dump a drink on him or slap him. Were I to react in any similar negative way I would be charged with a hate crime based on his sexuality. (Don't say it wouldn't happen because I can point out news articles that it has happened).

It is exactly this type of situation that the military is trying to prevent.
I've had a lot of women hit on me even after I've made it clear I wasn't interested, and somehow I managed to keep myself from slapping them. :rolleyes: That's a really weak example. Besides, by that logic women shouldn't be allowed to serve, because they might be interested in the guys or vice versa.

[MANN]

I meant that it should be made illegal under federal law to discriminate against sexuality, in which case the army would have to follow the law like everyone else.

Be careful about that. there are many types of sexuality as stated before. i Dont want to open floodgates of any sexual preditors.

[Hilltop Customs]

I meant that it should be made illegal under federal law to discriminate against sexuality, in which case the army would have to follow the law like everyone else.

I agree, I was just "standing on the shoulders of giants" by refering back to your posting of the excerpt of The Preamble to explain why firing people based on sexuality should not be accepted.

[MANN]

I've had a lot of drunk women hit on me even after I've made it clear I wasn't interested, and somehow I managed to keep myself from slapping them. :rolleyes: That's a really weak example.

but none the less you are dealing with a group of men. If one starts hitting on one someone could easily loose control and do something that they regret.

As I stated earlier. Preventing one gay person from being killed by someone in the army is worth the $. A trial to proscute the straight persons, and the lawsuits that would go against the armed forces would be 3 fold of 300million.

[questionful]

Be careful about that. there are many types of sexuality as stated before. i Dont want to open floodgates of any sexual preditors.
Well, you're right, but I meant morally acceptable ones like homosexuality.


I just think it's cool we had a mature debate on a controversial topic without getting the thread closed or anyone banned! :rolleyes: Couldn't have done that on some other forums. . .

[Hilltop Customs]

Ok, 2 days ago I had a "fellow" who was obviously hitting on me. I don't appreciate it and shouldn't have to put up with it. But he wouldn't stop even when I made it very obvious that I wasn't interrested. If it were a male/female situation she would dump a drink on him or slap him. Were I to react in any similar negative way I would be charged with a hate crime based on his sexuality. (Don't say it wouldn't happen because I can point out news articles that it has happened).

It is exactly this type of situation that the military is trying to prevent.

man up and say sorry I dont swing that way. I highly doubt a women would dump a drink on someone without some type of provocation, more likely they would just tell them NO in some nice way.

I highly doubt splashing with a drink on someone would get you charged with a hate crime, more likely slapped in the face....but then again any other guy would probably sock you.

[wetwrks]

How would someone's gayness change your way of doing things?
Both parties, gay and hetero, should be able to pursue happiness without infringing on the other's ability to do the same.

In my case I cannot go to a public restroom without the possibility of having some lady acting like a man standing there staring at me.



Let's say for the sake of argument that a pedophile is born that way. That isn't his/her fault. And he is allowed to think whatever nasty things he likes to think about. BUT as soon as he chooses to act on his thoughts, ie, molests a child or what not, then he is affecting another person(s)'s ability to pursue happiness, and THAT is not allowed.

Oh you awful narrow minded individual, how can you discriminate against them like that. They cannot help it, it was how they were born.



people can do whatever awful stuff they want, and as long as it doesn't affect me, they can have at it!

That's just it. It may not be affecting you now. Just wait until they are allowed into your bathroom.

[questionful]

Well, whether you think openly gay people should be allowed in the army or not, there are probably hundreds of better ways $300+ million could be spent.

[MANN]

Well, whether you think openly gay people should be allowed in the army or not, there are probably hundreds of better ways $300+ million could be spent.

Our government is known for childish spending habbits. The DOD is no exception. The only way I could justify spending that kind of money on that is like I previously stated. It is less than what could be.

[wetwrks]

was under age, therefore cannot make the decision to consent

For how long? Children as young as 10 years old are now being considered (by the courts) to be capable of making proper adult decisions. How long will it be before it is pushed that the age of consent be lowered?

I have serious issues with children (as young as 10) being charged as adults in crimes.

[MANN]

It was fun. If this isnt locked maybe we can discuss some other problems in America tomorrow.

[wetwrks]

Coming next week: The debate over medical marijuana :rofl:

Oh, don't get me started. :D

[Hilltop Customs]

Be careful about that. there are many types of sexuality as stated before. i Dont want to open floodgates of any sexual preditors.

dude, let me state it for you like this:
ANY SEXUALITY SHOULD BE LEGAL. IT IS ONLY THE SEXUAL ACTIONS WHICH PRODUCE VICTIMS THAT ARE ILLEGAL!

If a person likes kids, but never has one single action to follow up on that sexuality, then they are not a criminal. If a person looks at 1 child porn site, they have committed a crime, because that child could not have consented.

Now if a man sits at a park and stares at little kids all day, guess what, he has committed a crime. The children and parents are victims because they can no longer enjoy using a public area because of that man.

Next argument will be "well this guy keeps on hitting on me." Just like rape its not a crime until you tell them to stop, after which if it continues it is called sexual harassment.

I can go on, but the simple fact is crimes are actions that produce victims, not ways of being.

[ThePixelGuru]

but none the less you are dealing with a group of men. If one starts hitting on one someone could easily loose control and do something that they regret.

As I stated earlier. Preventing one gay person from being killed by someone in the army is worth the $. A trial to proscute the straight persons, and the lawsuits that would go against the armed forces would be 3 fold of 300million.
In that case, we should have a don't ask don't tell policy for homophobes rather than homosexuals.
Someone acting out is one thing, but someone failing to fully conceal something that shouldn't matter in the first place is another.


That's just it. It may not be affecting you now. Just wait until they are allowed into your bathroom.
They are allowed into your bathroom now. Gay men still use the men's room, and gay women still use the women's room. What's the big deal?
EDIT: Many places (like my brother's college) actually have co-ed bathrooms these days.



kosmo, man, you need to tone it down. This thread's been pretty civil except for a few select posters. Just because you think the thread's going to be deleted doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to be a dick to people you don't agree with.

[Hilltop Customs]

In my case I cannot go to a public restroom without the possibility of having some lady acting like a man standing there staring at me.

Oh you awful narrow minded individual, how can you discriminate against them like that. They cannot help it, it was how they were born.

That's just it. It may not be affecting you now. Just wait until they are allowed into your bathroom.

ok that whole transgender bathroom ruling is weird, opening up bathrooms that are specifically there to separate sexs for for lack of a better term comfort and security. Heres a simple argument against that one: These transgender people do all this to look like a certain sex, so they should use whichever sexs bathroom that they choose to be. Females who want to be males go to the male bathroom, where they have to use a stall....males who want to be females go to the female bathroom, where they are forced to use a stall(only thing there). Seems simple enough to me, follow your appearance. :cheers:

[Hilltop Customs]

Oh, don't get me started. :D

oh I'll do it......I just need some free time this week lol

[Hilltop Customs]

just to add to the end of questionfuls remark about the internet stuff. Who cares if he posts all over the internet. Hell he could be in nude gay poses.....ALL over the net. It is the army's rule "dont ask dont tell" He is not expressly telling anyone in the army he is gay, therefore it is the army who is beginning the altercation by ASKING HIM. If someone in his barracks happens to come across the site that has his pictures, for anything to actually come of it the witnesses to the website would have to consult superior officers......hence asking questions.

[Hilltop Customs]

so i guess by the "dont ask dont tell" policy, and every single person involved with the whole situation should be discharged or at least punished in some way(excluding the homosexual who did not break any rules) This would continue the whole way of the line of command, since everyone involved were asking and telling.

I rest my case.

[wetwrks]

And our response to pedophiles who say "it's not my fault I was born this way" should be "that's too bad, it hurts kids" while our response to gays who say "it's not my fault I was born this way" should be "that's ok, it doesn't hurt anyone." The difference is that pedophiles have relationships with children too young to give informed consent while gays have relationships with fully functional, logically thinking adults.

Again, courts are saying that children as young as 10 are capable of making adult decisions. If the child and adult both consent who are you to interrupt their happiness?


As far as employers asking employees not to be gay, that's not how it works. Employers can't ask their employees to be male or to be white, why should they be able to ask them to be heterosexual?

They arn't, they are simply asking that the individual not advertise it. That the employer CAN ask.


Sexuality is not a choice - homosexual men's brains have been proven to be similar to women, there are proven genes that increase the likelihood of being gay (as does being a younger sibling), and scientists have even managed to flip a single fruit fly gene to get gay flies. The evidence just keeps piling up. Wait a few years and I bet we'll be able to figure out someone's sexuality based entirely on DNA.

Again, DNA. Either it validates everything including pedophilia or they are all invalidated by it.

[wetwrks]

Be careful about that. there are many types of sexuality as stated before. i Dont want to open floodgates of any sexual preditors.

That is it exactly. This opens the floodgates for all kinds or sexual predators.

[Hilltop Customs]

wetwrks, do our current laws give children the legal right to consent? it may allow them to make adult decisions in certain situations. Until the law changes to give the child a right to consent, adult decisions dont mean anything. Also when/if the law changes to read that way, yes a child could do whatever they want.....but that law is not going to change.

Yes they can ask their employees not to flaunt it, but the same standards should be applied to both sexes(ie: females cant kiss males, males cant kiss males, females cant kiss females no matter how much i want them to)

No DNA has nothing to do with anything......

dude, let me state it for you like this:
ANY SEXUALITY SHOULD BE LEGAL. IT IS ONLY THE SEXUAL ACTIONS WHICH PRODUCE VICTIMS THAT ARE ILLEGAL!

If a person likes kids, but never has one single action to follow up on that sexuality, then they are not a criminal. If a person looks at 1 child porn site, they have committed a crime, because that child could not have consented.

Now if a man sits at a park and stares at little kids all day, guess what, he has committed a crime. The children and parents are victims because they can no longer enjoy using a public area because of that man.

Next argument will be "well this guy keeps on hitting on me." Just like rape its not a crime until you tell them to stop, after which if it continues it is called sexual harassment.

I can go on, but the simple fact is crimes are actions that produce victims, not ways of being.


*rape the victim doesnt have to say no, IDK why I said rape instead of sexual harassment

[wetwrks]

man up and say sorry I dont swing that way. I highly doubt a women would dump a drink on someone without some type of provocation, more likely they would just tell them NO in some nice way.

I have seen a lady dump a drink on a guy who wouldn't take no for an answer on several occasions.


I highly doubt splashing with a drink on someone would get you charged with a hate crime, more likely slapped in the face....but then again any other guy would probably sock you.

I recently read of a local boy who is charged with a hate crime for "shoving" a boy who was hitting on him.

[wetwrks]

Well, whether you think openly gay people should be allowed in the army or not, there are probably hundreds of better ways $300+ million could be spent.

And there are better ways to spend money than to out individuals who get tatoos, but the rule is there for a reason.

[Hilltop Customs]

I have seen a lady dump a drink on a guy who wouldn't take no for an answer on several occasions.



I recently read of a local boy who is charged with a hate crime for "shoving" a boy who was hitting on him.

didnt take no for an answer = provocation

the guy who got charged deserved it because he was in the wrong. Just like any simple assault, it falls back to the first contact. Now if the guy who was hitting on him was told to stop, the blame is up in the air as to what exactly happened.

[wetwrks]

They are allowed into your bathroom now. Gay men still use the men's room, and gay women still use the women's room. What's the big deal?
EDIT: Many places (like my brother's college) actually have co-ed bathrooms these days.

The big deal is a lot of men don't want to go into the bathroom and have some lady looking at you. Moreover most women will seriously have issues with some man in their restroom. Doesn't matter how they are dressed.

[Hilltop Customs]

"The Army has revised its policy on tattoos in an effort to bolster recruitment of highly-qualified individuals who might otherwise have been excluded from joining.

Tattoos are now permitted on the hands and back of the neck if they are not “extremist, indecent, sexist or racist.” Army Regulation 670-1, which was modified via a message released Jan. 25, also now specifies: “Any tattoo or brand anywhere on the head or face is prohibited except for permanent make-up.""

[Hilltop Customs]

The big deal is a lot of men don't want to go into the bathroom and have some lady looking at you. Moreover most women will seriously have issues with some man in their restroom. Doesn't matter how they are dressed.


ok that whole transgender bathroom ruling is weird, opening up bathrooms that are specifically there to separate sexs for for lack of a better term comfort and security. Heres a simple argument against that one: These transgender people do all of this to look like a certain sex, so they should use whichever sexs bathroom that they choose to be. Females who want to be males go to the male bathroom, where they have to use a stall....males who want to be females go to the female bathroom, where they are forced to use a stall(only thing there). Seems simple enough to me, follow your appearance. :cheers:

did you read any of my posts? Or do you mean gay people using the opposite sexes bathroom?(which doesnt make sense)

[billybob_81067]

This thread is GAY...... that is all



/lol couldn't resist! Oh and IBTL!

[Ratt]

As far as I am concerned, it is as simple as this: When you sign a contract to join the military, you are informed of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. If you are gay, and you join the military, you are obligated to keep your sexual preference to yourself. The minute you start advertising that you are gay, or make yourself known as being gay, you have breeched your contract with the military, and are subject to being processed out. That is the bottom line. Until the policy is changed, those are the rules.

(Disclaimer: The following statement is an OPINION, and it is MY opinion. In no way should the following be construed as the opinion or policy of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government entity. Nor should it be assumed that I speak for anyone other than myself.)

In my opinion, gay people should not be allowed in the military. I am not a homophobe, but I do not wish to be crammed on a 567 ft. vessel with 365 other people, and not know who is gay. The notion of a homosexual in our ranks is/could be detrimental to the moral of the crew, not to mention the moral and/or physical well-being of the gay person. The supposed $369 million spent to "weed out the gays" is a drop in the bucket, compared to the money that would be paid out if a gay person were to be injured/killed by someone in their unit, and the military were sued. God knows if that were to happen, and some liberal judge were assigned to rule on that case, more than likely the lawsuit would result in the military having to pay out millions, possibly billions, in lawsuits.

[Hilltop Customs]

why would the military be sued over a persons actions? maybe if it was a planned actions (you cant handle the truth!) but if it was someone who acted on their own, how would the military be at fault?

The only lawsuit I could see against the military would be the guy who committed the murder claiming that "being forced into a tin can with a homosexual caused my murderous rage" which would quickly be thrown out.

[billybob_81067]

In my opinion, gay people should not be allowed in the military. I am not a homophobe, but I do not wish to be crammed on a 567 ft. vessel with 365 other people, and not know who is gay. The notion of a homosexual in our ranks is/could be detrimental to the moral of the crew, not to mention the moral and/or physical well-being of the gay person. The supposed $369 million spent to "weed out the gays" is a drop in the bucket, compared to the money that would be paid out if a gay person were to be injured/killed by someone in their unit, and the military were sued. God knows if that were to happen, and some liberal judge were assigned to rule on that case, more than likely the lawsuit would result in the military having to pay out millions, possibly billions, in lawsuits.

I'd have to disagree with you there... I say let them all in, let them be openly gay, put them all in the same platoon, and slap em on the very front of the front line. Followed up by all the illegal aliens we catch.

/I'm getting these funny pictures in my head of gays running arounnd with laser guns going "Pew, Pew, Zzzzzzzzapppp!" and the mexicans bringing their switchblades to the gunfight! :rofl:

//k I'm done :)

[drg]

So should heterosexuals be prevented from holding jobs in which they work closely with members of the opposite sex?

[ThePixelGuru]

Again, courts are saying that children as young as 10 are capable of making adult decisions. If the child and adult both consent who are you to interrupt their happiness?
Actually, it's called the "age of consent" for a reason, and you won't find any place in this country where it's that low. Below that age a person cannot give consent, although sometimes children are charged with crimes as adults because they were fully aware of their actions and the consequences of those actions. There's a reason that the default is higher than 10, though.


They arn't, they are simply asking that the individual not advertise it. That the employer CAN ask.
Don't understand the second part, but as for the first that argument doesn't apply here. The military isn't telling gays not to act gay, it's telling gays not to be gay. "Don't ask don't tell" just means they're not supposed to make any effort to find out if people are gay or not. It's the difference between dictating office behavior and discriminating against certain groups. For some reason the Army is the only employer that's allowed to get away with this kind of discrimination.


Again, DNA. Either it validates everything including pedophilia or they are all invalidated by it.
Everyone I see arguing against gay rights usually tries to carry this stuff too far. I know someone who is afraid that if we legalize gay marriage the next step will be people marrying their pet hamsters. The difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is whether or not they harm anyone. Having sex with a child too young to consent is hurting that child, while two adults giving informed consent to engage in a relationship with each other hurts no one. If my friend can't see the difference between men marrying men and men marrying hamsters and you can't see the difference between having sex with little kids and having sex with consenting adults, I'm not sure how any amount of logic can convince either of you.

[wetwrks]

you can't see the difference between having sex with little kids and having sex with consenting adults, I'm not sure how any amount of logic can convince either of you.

I see the difference. My point is the argument used is that the DNA validates the lifestyle. If the DNA validates the lifestyle then the DNA also validates the pedophillia lifestyle also. Whether you like it or not.

My argument against the gay lifestyle is very similar to your argument against pedophillia. You simply choose to not see it that way.

A man who commits suicide is a consenting adult. Yet it is still illegal. Why? He is old enough to make those choices for himself, & he isn't harming others.

[questionful]

I see the difference. My point is the argument used is that the DNA validates the lifestyle. If the DNA validates the lifestyle then the DNA also validates the pedophillia lifestyle also. Whether you like it or not.
DNA, whether it determines if someone will be gay or be a perv, does NOT force them to make a choice to live a certain way. Your logic is just wrong. Even if DNA did make someone like children, it DOESN'T make them choose to do anything about it. That is a CHOICE. The same choice you make when you decide not to steal someone's money.


My argument against the gay lifestyle is very similar to your argument against pedophillia. You simply choose to not see it that way.
So you're saying that doing gay things per se hurts others?


A man who commits suicide is a consenting adult. Yet it is still illegal. Why? He is old enough to make those choices for himself, & he isn't harming others.
You're comparing being gay with committing suicide? You know what, answer that question yourself. I would like to know why you think suicide is illegal.

[wetwrks]

DNA, whether it determines if someone will be gay or be a perv, does NOT force them to make a choice to live a certain way. Your logic is just wrong. Even if DNA did make someone like children, it DOESN'T make them choose to do anything about it. That is a CHOICE. The same choice you make when you decide not to steal someone's money.

So then people have a choice to be or not to be gay? And that choice is harmful to not just them but also their partner. Thus not a victimless situation.

And while it is ok for society to expect the pedophiles to not act on their impulses, it is wrong of the military to expect gays to not let others know they are gay while in the military.



So you're saying that doing gay things per se hurts others?

I believe it is harmful to those involved.


You're comparing being gay with committing suicide? You know what, answer that question yourself. I would like to know why you think suicide is illegal.

No, I am making a point that suicide is a choice (made by a consenting adult) without a "victim". And that were you to say the chooser is the victim then it only reenforces my point about those involved in gay relationships possibly being the "victim".

[wetwrks]

I would like to know why you think suicide is illegal.

(Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.)

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html

[questionful]

So then people have a choice to be or not to be gay?
No, they don't have a choice to be or not be gay. They have a choice to do gay things or not do gay things. Which doesn't matter, because doing gay things doesn't hurt anyone.


And that choice is harmful to not just them but also their partner. Thus not a victimless situation.
What? How is that choice harmful to them or their partner?


And while it is ok for society to expect the pedophiles to not act on their impulses, it is wrong of the military to expect gays to not let others know they are gay while in the military.
When pedophiles act on their impulses, people are hurt.
When gay people act on their impulses, no one is hurt!


I believe it is harmful to those involved.
Um, how?


No, I am making a point that suicide is a choice (made by a consenting adult) without a "victim". And that were you to say the chooser is the victim then it only reenforces my point about those involved in gay relationships possibly being the "victim".
Well I'm not too sure on my thoughts about suicide, but I would say the chooser is the victim. Because suicide hurts you. But gayness doesn't hurt anyone. So they're completely different.


So I guess it all boils down to whether or not you think gayness hurts anyone. I don't think it does. Could you explain to me how you think it hurts anyone?

[Hilltop Customs]

wetwrks, its the actions that can bring about a penalty, not the thoughts. Just like I cannot be punished because I happened to think about killing someone in a time of anger.....a child molester can think about molesting a child all day and night.......both cannot be punished. It is when that child molester takes one action that it is punishable, because that one action creates a victim. The instant there is a victim, there has also been a crime.

Show where a homosexual act creates a victim, and I'll say it should be illegal.(and the search/dismissal of homosexuals in the military is justified)


I had more to say, but this is the third try at this and I'm trying to submit be4 the power goes off again.

[SCpoloRicker]

I find the biblical argument against homosexuality to be severely lacking. And, yes, I've read Leviticus. If (and that's a large "if" anyways) we were to be using the bible as a moral code, there's a whole boatload of wacky stuff in there.

[Bang and Breach]

I'd spend that money on removing the 'illegals' from this country. This place needs a social enema.

[ThePixelGuru]

I see the difference. My point is the argument used is that the DNA validates the lifestyle. If the DNA validates the lifestyle then the DNA also validates the pedophillia lifestyle also. Whether you like it or not.
I never said DNA validated homosexuality. I could personally care less if it's nature, nurture or choice, it doesn't hurt anyone regardless.


My argument against the gay lifestyle is very similar to your argument against pedophillia. You simply choose to not see it that way.
No, because my argument against pedophilia hinges on the ability to give informed consent. Children cannot give informed consent, homosexual adults can. Pedophilia harms children who are too young to understand the whole situation, while homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. Even if you believe it does, it doesn't matter. If an individual capable of giving informed consent wants to cause harm to themselves (or a group of people all give informed consent to harm themselves), I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to prevent that.


A man who commits suicide is a consenting adult. Yet it is still illegal. Why? He is old enough to make those choices for himself, & he isn't harming others.
And I think it's appalling that a practice that's considered humane and an act of mercy to relieve the suffering of our pets is illegal to perform on people. You can humanely kill a pet suffering of a terminal illness, yet the "right" thing to do with people is just let it drag on to its inevitable end, however painful and terrible. I don't see the logic in that.



"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

[Hilltop Customs]

And I think it's appalling that a practice that's considered humane and an act of mercy to relieve the suffering of our pets is illegal to perform on people. You can humanely kill a pet suffering of a terminal illness, yet the "right" thing to do with people is just let it drag on to its inevitable end, however painful and terrible. I don't see the logic in that.


After watching my dad suffer from pancreatic cancer I wish he had that option open to him. After he passed away my mother told me that they had a discussion about taking enough liquid morphine to end it, but one of the major factors that kept my dad from doing it was insurance.... If someone is suffering that bad they should have a choice to do whatever they want, limiting their options is just inhumane.

[Army]

Closed, for all the obvious reasons.