what would you spend 369 million on?

[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.

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!

//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.