what would you spend 369 million on?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

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