Discussion: Gay Rights

[Speedball]

Why dont some of you be productive an join up. Then you can try changing the system from the inside instead of *****ing about it on a message board.
I just might, to piss you off.

[Kyalesyin]

Why dont some of you be productive an join up. Then you can try changing the system from the inside instead of *****ing about it on a message board.

Sure. Why not. You first. I would join up but I'm joining the police in may. Us queers actually have rights in the police.

[Sandman138]

You've been watching too much TV

That's because Everything Looks Beautiful on Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvyS6zW8rIU)

[Demon Within]

so, then, you're for suppressing freedom of speech?:o
yeah, I don't think many people are going to be on your "side"
if you don't have freedom of expression what's your army defending anyway?


They are defending the right of those people to be openly gay in a society that allows it. Get it through your head I dont like that the military has to ban openly gay people but I also understand for the sake of the member it is a good idea.

I think you all need to step off my dick for a second. Im posting my opinion, no need to for you guys to attack me the way you are.

[Ben Urich]

Do you guys think he got his screen name from his nickname for homosexuality? :huh:

[Demon Within]

Sure. Why not. You first. I would join up but I'm joining the police in may. Us queers actually have rights in the police.


Thanks Iv done my service. I think youll see a decent amount of gay hate inside the police as well. Maybe then youll be able to see my P.O.V.

[Kyalesyin]

They are defending the right of those people to be openly gay in a society that allows it. Get it through your head I dont like that the military has to ban openly gay people but I also understand for the sake of the member it is a good idea.

I think you all need to step off my dick for a second. Im posting my opinion, no need to for you guys to attack me the way you are.

You don't wanna get attacked? Then don't fight back. Step down, agree to disagree as I have seen done any number of times before, and then leave well enough alone.

[Mr Sparkle]

Why dont some of you be productive an join up. Then you can try changing the system from the inside instead of *****ing about it on a message board.

Kya is gay, so she'd be booted off and would have to comeback here anyway.
so, no...weak argument, more like no argument. :down

go to the Anime/manga forums and think about what you have done :cmad:

[sinewave]

Why dont some of you be productive an join up. Then you can try changing the system from the inside instead of *****ing about it on a message board.

i've already done my time in the military. none of this will be changed by enlisted folks, because they have no voice. they're property of the government and forfeight a lot of their rights. it'll be up to the government and military leaders to change this. senator chris dodd just released a statement asking for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to be abolished and for gays to serve openly. i doubt it will pass, but i'm hoping it will eventually.

[CyberFaust]

Do you guys think he got his screen name from his nickname for homosexuality? :huh:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :woot:

[Kyalesyin]

Thanks Iv done my service. I think youll see a decent amount of gay hate inside the police as well. Maybe then youll be able to see my P.O.V.

US or UK?

I know a hella lot of cops. My mother has worked with them most of her life. Sure, the police force has its problems, but unlike the military, it addresses those problems and takes steps to deal with them. I'm not going into this blind. That would be stupid.

[Kyalesyin]

Kya is gay, so she'd be booted off and would have to comeback here anyway.
so, no...weak argument, more like no argument. :down

go to the Anime/manga forums and think about what you have done :cmad:

Not only gay, but married to a woman and bloody happy about it.

[Mr Sparkle]

They are defending the right of those people to be openly gay in a society that allows it. Get it through your head I dont like that the military has to ban openly gay people but I also understand for the sake of the member it is a good idea.

I think you all need to step off my dick for a second. Im posting my opinion, no need to for you guys to attack me the way you are.

since the Army is part of a society then they can't be openly gay can they now?
and you need to have at least an idea of WHY you support something like this or WHY it saves lives before you say it.
it's not my fault you didn't think this through.:whatever:

[Demon Within]

Do you guys think he got his screen name from his nickname for homosexuality? :huh:


So funny. :whatever: Personal attacks over the internet are a waste of time.

[Sandman138]

So funny. :whatever: Personal attacks over the internet are a waste of time.


You are so smart you have all the answers. Why not run for President?

Whats the meaning of life since you seem to have a clever little solution to every problem?

:huh:

[Demon Within]

since the Army is part of a society then they can't be openly gay can they now?
and you need to have at least an idea of WHY you support something like this or WHY it saves lives before you say it.
it's not my fault you didn't think this through.:whatever:


Soldiers first citizens second. In uniform they dont follow the same laws as normal civilians an also dont get the same rights.

I done NEED anything especially to prove anything to you. This a debate, nothing more. Iv already given my reason why I support dont ask/dont tell.

[Demon Within]

:huh:


Its sarcasm not a personal attack. You do seem to think you have every answer to every problem so I sarcastically suggested running for president.

[jaguarr]

Gang up on me I could care less. You dont like my view to bad. I think the military is saving lives by not letting them be openly gay. Does it suck they cant express who they are? Of course it does. Suppression hurts. Dying hurts worse.

Imagine what families would do if there son/daughter was not rescued in combat because others knew there sexuality an decided to save the "straight" person first! I 100% believe this would occur an my guess is so does the government so instead of fighting a ton of legal battles they dont allow.

It saves lives, I agree with them even if it suppresses a piece of who they are.

That's quite possibly the weakest argument I've ever heard in favor of disallowing openly gay people to serve in the military. It's also not the official reason, is it, now? ;)

jag

[Demon Within]

That's quite possibly the weakest argument I've ever heard in favor of disallowing openly gay people to serve in the military. It's also not the official reason, is it, now? ;)

jag


Gee how ever did you guess thats not the official reason? Maybe the post that says I dont speak for the military or government perhaps?

:whatever:

I 100% support dont ask/dont tell.

[Sandman138]

Its sarcasm not a personal attack. You do seem to think you have every answer to every problem so I sarcastically suggested running for president.

Oh... I get how it works now.

You're an *******!

Let's make out.

[sinewave]

Soldiers first citizens second. In uniform they dont follow the same laws as normal civilians an also dont get the same rights.

I done NEED anything especially to prove anything to you. This a debate, nothing more. Iv already given my reason why I support dont ask/dont tell.

you probably don't need anyone else jumping into this debate, but by supporting something like don't ask/don't tell, you're supporting bigotry. you're supporting something that suppresses someone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that's un-american.

[Mr Sparkle]

Soldiers first citizens second. In uniform they dont follow the same laws as normal civilians an also dont get the same rights.

I done NEED anything especially to prove anything to you. This a debate, nothing more. Iv already given my reason why I support dont ask/dont tell.

I'm sorry, you done no such thing.
I'll ask you again ( you avoided answering this before) do you think the army should have soldiers of one single race as well?
you know, so they're not tempted to discriminate against their fellow army men.

[Demon Within]

you probably don't need anyone else jumping into this debate, but by supporting something like don't ask/don't tell, you're supporting bigotry. you're supporting something that suppresses someone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that's un-american.


I support it 100%. Im not going to be pushed around an suppress my thoughts on the issue to be PC, especially not here. I support any gay person who wants to enter the military. Gays can shoot an die just like straight people can.

On these boards if its not your view its bigotry. Everyone is trying to make me into some neo nazi gay hater. Sorry im not. I think it would do MORE HARM then GOOD allowing openly gay people in the military.

[Ben Urich]

you probably don't need anyone else jumping into this debate, but by supporting something like don't ask/don't tell, you're supporting bigotry. you're supporting something that suppresses someone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that's un-american.

http://www.dallasartsrevue.com/ArtSpaces/Plush/tha-winna-3778.jpg

THA WINNAH!

I support it 100%. Im not going to be pushed around an suppress my thoughts on the issue to be PC, especially not here. I support any gay person who wants to enter the military. Gays can shoot an die just like straight people can.

On these boards if its not your view its bigotry. Everyone is trying to make me into some neo nazi gay hater. Sorry im not. I think it would do MORE HARD then GOOD allowing openly gay people in the military.

Freud would like to speak with you. :o

[jaguarr]

Gee how ever did you guess thats not the official reason? Maybe the post that says I dont speak for the military or government perhaps?

:whatever:

I 100% support dont ask/dont tell.

Imagine what families would do if there son/daughter was not rescued in combat because others knew there sexuality an decided to save the "straight" person first! I 100% believe this would occur an my guess is so does the government so instead of fighting a ton of legal battles they dont allow.

You're putting words into the mouth of the government right there.

jag

[sinewave]

I support it 100%. Im not going to be pushed around an suppress my thoughts on the issue to be PC, especially not here. I support any gay person who wants to enter the military. Gays can shoot an die just like straight people can.

On these boards if its not your view its bigotry. Everyone is trying to make me into some neo nazi gay hater. Sorry im not. I think it would do MORE HARM then GOOD allowing openly gay people in the military.

think about it this way, how can we ask gay people to fight for their freedoms if we tell them they aren't free to be who they are? doesn't that sound kind of ridiculous to you?

[jaguarr]

I think it would do MORE HARM then GOOD allowing openly gay people in the military.

You have yet to explain this sentiment of yours other than "They might not get saved if they're injured because the straight people would all get saved first.".

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

I support it 100%. Im not going to be pushed around an suppress my thoughts on the issue to be PC, especially not here. I support any gay person who wants to enter the military. Gays can shoot an die just like straight people can.

On these boards if its not your view its bigotry. Everyone is trying to make me into some neo nazi gay hater. Sorry im not. I think it would do MORE HARM then GOOD allowing openly gay people in the military.

the Ironing is delicious :huh: :up:

[Demon Within]

You're putting words into the mouth of the government right there.

jag


I also notice the word guess. MY GUESS infact.

[Ben Urich]

the Ironing is delicious :huh: :up:

Nice catch. :up:

[sinewave]

the Ironing is delicious :huh: :up:

he won't notice. :csad:

[jaguarr]

I also notice the word guess. MY GUESS infact.

So you're not sticking to factual points, just random points you're making guesses about, then?

jag

[Sandman138]

"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy

Yes, this policy sounds so altruistic.

[Demon Within]

think about it this way, how can we ask gay people to fight for their freedoms if we tell them they aren't free to be who they are? doesn't that sound kind of ridiculous to you?


Because the world is not perfect an people are not kind to others who are "different". Iv explained it many times. "people fear what they dont understand" well when you have a gun sometimes its not fear.

Jag iv posted many times other reasons that I think its a bad idea your just not looking.

If this was a perfect world openly gay people would be fine. Thats not the case in Americas military. Your all coming after me like I have a hand in it. I dont. I support dont ask dont tell because I think gays would be targeted by other members if it was not in place. I could see getting this abuse if I was some homosexual hater preaching they should all burn but since thats not the case people should ease up a bit.

[jaguarr]

You ARE preaching intolerance of homosexuals. What part of that don't you get? And this world isn't perfect BECAUSE so many people refuse to just accept people for who they are and it won't change until people start pushing for change.

jag

[Sandman138]

Not really sure what military you're talking about, because outside of Boot Camp, I've never known a command that has it's soldiers or Marines shower together.

Honestly, even the straight people here imagine the military as one big porn movie... :whatever:

Stop ****ing with my midnight fantasies!:cmad:

[Speedball]

Because the world is not perfect an people are not kind to others who are "different". Iv explained it many times. "people fear what they dont understand" well when you have a gun sometimes its not fear.

Jag iv posted many times other reasons that I think its a bad idea your just not looking.

If this was a perfect world openly gay people would be fine. Thats not the case in Americas military. Your all coming after me like I have a hand in it. I dont. I support dont ask dont tell because I think gays would be targeted by other members if it was not in place. I could see getting this abuse if I was some homosexual hater preaching they should all burn but since thats not the case people should ease up a bit.
Yawn...You're boring me.
You keep saying the same thing over and over again.
We get it.
So...I'm gonna go make out with my sailor boyfriend.
Have fun failing at trying to prove your point.

Ps.- It's "and" not "an".

[Demon Within]

You ARE preaching intolerance of homosexuals. What part of that don't you get? And this world isn't perfect BECAUSE so many people refuse to just accept people for who they are and it won't change until people start pushing for change.

jag


Wrong im preaching PROTECTION not intolerance. Your seeing intolerance because its what you want to see.

[Sandman138]

When do I get a sailor boy of my very own? WHEN!?!?:cmad: :csad:

[Mr Sparkle]

why do you keep skipping my question DW?
what the hell?
do you KNOW what a debate IS?

[Demon Within]

Yawn...You're boring me.
You keep saying the same thing over and over again.
We get it.
So...I'm gonna go make out with my sailor boyfriend.
Have fun failing at trying to prove your point.

Ps.- It's "and" not "an".


I am repeating the same thing because they are throwing out the same comments.

P.S. This is a message board not a english lit essay.

[Speedball]

When do I get a sailor boy of my very own? WHEN!?!?:cmad: :csad:
You need to hang out at the docks.
I live in a military town, so they're all over the place.
It's sad when they leave town and dump you for a sexy European guy.

[Demon Within]

why do you keep skipping my question DW?
what the hell?
do you KNOW what a debate IS?


Because your "debates" are nothing but setup questions. Why not read my posts then maybe you can answer your own questions about if the military should have one race.

[Ben Urich]

P.S. This is a message board not a english lit essay.

Because typing properly should only be reserved for school and work assignments. :o

[Mr Sparkle]

Because your "debates" are nothing but setup questions. Why not read my posts then maybe you can answer your own questions about if the military should have one race.

oh, I've looked over the thread and you haven't even touched on that specific issue, I'm guessing because it completely invalidates your ill conceived point.

but for the benefit of everyone here it is again.

if homosexuality should be kept hidden so soldiers are not tempted to discriminate against the gay members of the army.
do you think that the Army should be composed of a single race so that the same is avoided when it comes to racial bigotry?

if so, Kudos.

If not, why?

[Demon Within]

Because typing properly should only be reserved for school and work assignments. :o

If you can read it my job was done well enough.

[Demon Within]

oh, I've looked over the thread and you haven't even touched on that specific issue, I'm guessing because it completely invalidates your ill conceived point.

but for the benefit of everyone here it is again.

if homosexuality should be kept hidden so soldiers are not tempted to discriminate against the gay members of the army.
do you think that the Army should be composed of a single race so that the same is avoided when it comes to racial bigotry?

if so, Kudos.

If not, why?

Will I keep annoying you by not answering? I have the answer to the question im just taking great enjoyment of not providing you the answer.

[Mr Sparkle]

Will I keep annoying you by not answering? I have the answer to the question im just taking great enjoyment of not providing you the answer.


lol, you don't annoy me in the least.
every time you don't answer is a mere underscoring of how poorly thought out your argument is.
will you keep highlighting how large a moron you are?
well that's up to you isn't it?:o

[Demon Within]

lol, you don't annoy me in the least.
every time you don't answer is a mere underscoring of how poorly thought out your argument is.
will you keep highlighting how large a moron you are?
well that's up to you isn't it?:o


If thats how you feel. Ill try not to let it affect my poker playing ability tonight. Good try on trying to rope me in though. :cwink:

[Speedball]

I am repeating the same thing because they are throwing out the same comments.

P.S. This is a message board not a english lit essay.
http://inlinethumb55.webshots.com/2422/2595831360080786579S600x600Q85.jpg
This isn't an English Literature Essay?:huh:

[Sandman138]

If you can read it my job was done well enough.

Mediocrity for teh winZ0rZ!!!

[Mr Sparkle]

If thats how you feel. Ill try not to let it affect my poker playing ability tonight. Good try on trying to rope me in though. :cwink:

LOL, you assume too much.
I KNOW you have no answer, the whole "I'll keep annoying you" thing is a poor attempt at misdirection.
LMAO....nothing is more entertaining than someone like you.:woot:

[Sandman138]

http://www.costumecraze.com/images/vendors/eloper/LA3574-thumb2.jpg

http://www.superdickery.com/images/oneshot/batmansfacial1fk.jpg

[Speedball]

http://www.superdickery.com/images/oneshot/batmansfacial1fk.jpg
EWW!!!
I need to put a pwned on it.

[Sandman138]

But he already has both my kidneys.:csad:

[jaguarr]

Wrong im preaching PROTECTION not intolerance. Your seeing intolerance because its what you want to see.

No you are not. You are preaching intolerance of other human beings. Period. And besides, every single "reason" you've come up with so far about why homosexuals shouldn't allowed to be openly gay stems from the flawed logic that there is something WRONG with them being gay in the first place. You aren't protecting anything but intolerance and homophobic ideals.

jag

[jaguarr]

Mmmm....did someone say liver? Excellent muscle-building food! :ninja:

jag

[Memphis Slim]

the fact that so many crucial arabic linguists have been discharged from the military due to their sexual preference is ****ing ridiculous. it's just another example of how wrong religious extremists are in their world view.



So all the linguists in the military are gay, now?? :dry:

[Sandman138]

The cunning ones.

[jaguarr]

So all the linguists in the military are gay, now?? :dry:

The cunning ones.

Ba-dum-tssssss!

http://www.kudo.nl/instrumenten/drumset.jpg

jag

[sinewave]

So all the linguists in the military are gay, now?? :dry:

nope, but there have been quite a few and it's a shame to fire someone with that unique skill set and willingness to serve their country because of something as trivial as sexual preference.

[terry78]

It would be the same as not allowing someone with a muslim background to not be allowed in the army. I know of someone that has actually had an issue with this.

[Riding Ghost]

No you are not. You are preaching intolerance of other human beings. Period. And besides, every single "reason" you've come up with so far about why homosexuals shouldn't allowed to be openly gay stems from the flawed logic that there is something WRONG with them being gay in the first place. jag

It is your opinion that there is nothing wrong with being gay in the first place. Others have a different opinion, as I know you are full aware. In fact those with the different opinion have human history, biology and the belief systems of most all the world (relegion) on there side. You have your own feelings persuaded by the current system of sociatal beliefs and cultural trends on your side of the opinion thing. I don't see what makes your opinion superior to the others.

[jaguarr]

It is your opinion that there is nothing wrong with being gay in the first place. Others have a different opinion, as I know you are full aware. In fact those with the different opinion have human history, biology and the belief systems of most all the world (relegion) on there side. You have your own feelings persuaded by the current system of sociatal beliefs and cultural trends on your side of the opinion thing. I don't see what makes your opinion superior to the others.

Biology on their side? LOL! Riiiight. Go away. You're advocating discrimination against your fellow human beings which is a morally inferior position of argument. Period.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

Biology on their side? LOL! Riiiight. Go away. You're advocating discrimination against your fellow human beings which is a morally inferior position of argument. Period.

jag


but he has "relegion" on his side.
at least we have grammar :up: awesome! one up and high five!!!!

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL, it's awesome when someone acts like they have done research or something and can't spell "religion" or "societal" :up:

[jaguarr]

but he has "relegion" on his side.
at least we have grammar :up: awesome! one up and high five!!!!

And logic. We also have logic. Let's not forget that. :up:

Seriously, if you are advocating discrimination and bigotry against another human being, you are a moral deviant. Period. Even the friggin' BIBLE says "Judge not lest ye be judged". I'm not even a Christian and I know this. Why do I seem to have an easier time practicing that than most Christians? Jesus was about acceptance of everyone, even those everyone else had outcast (lepers, anyone?). He was about accepting people for who they were, regardless of whether they were "living a life of sin" or not. So, yeah...get all "relegiony" on me and see how far that gets you.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

I'm guessing riding ghost is the knight.
or they go to the same school, or share the same "hooked on phonics" tape.

who knows?

[Riding Ghost]

Biology on their side? LOL! Riiiight. Go away. You're advocating discrimination against your fellow human beings which is a morally inferior position of argument. Period.

jag

Go Away??
Ok your right, I'm wrong. I don't know what I was thinking :whatever:

[Riding Ghost]

but he has "relegion" on his side.
at least we have grammar :up: awesome! one up and high five!!!!


Ahhh, I love it when these get turned into a spelling bee :whatever:

[jaguarr]

Go Away??
Ok your right, I'm wrong. I don't know what I was thinking :whatever:

I'm glad you've come to your senses. Try not to put your fellow human beings down anymore. :up:

jag

[Riding Ghost]

Jeez, just read the rest of your posts. I'm tyypping fast, please pardon me for my speloing

[Riding Ghost]

I'm glad you've come to your senses. Try not to put your fellow human beings down anymore. :up:

jag

Thanx

[Riding Ghost]

I'm glad you've come to your senses. Try not to put your fellow human beings down anymore. :up:

jag

However...if I may....the whole "fellow human beings" thing is rather weak. Religious right wing extremist are also "fellow human beings". You wouldn't advocate some kinda tolerance for them.....would you??

[Riding Ghost]

And logic. We also have logic. Let's not forget that. :up:

Seriously, if you are advocating discrimination and bigotry against another human being, you are a moral deviant. Period. Even the friggin' BIBLE says "Judge not lest ye be judged". I'm not even a Christian and I know this. Why do I seem to have an easier time practicing that than most Christians? Jesus was about acceptance of everyone, even those everyone else had outcast (lepers, anyone?). He was about accepting people for who they were, regardless of whether they were "living a life of sin" or not. So, yeah...get all "relegiony" on me and see how far that gets you.

jag

Wrong, Jesus said go AND SIN NO MORE, but lets not talk about what Jesus said, since you don't care

[jaguarr]

However...if I may....the whole "fellow human beings" thing is rather weak. Religious right wing extremist are also "fellow human beings". You wouldn't advocate some kinda tolerance for them.....would you??

Sure I would. As long as they aren't trying to oppress anyone or push their ideals on others (such as through say, legislation), then I have absolutely no problems with them believing whatever they want to believe. The trouble is, most extremists of any kind have a hard time not trying to instigate discrimination against those that are different from them, don't they? Advocating equal treatment of all human beings by other human beings isn't "weak". It's possibly one of the most difficult positions to maintain on a personal level because there are things people do every day that we find distasteful or deplorable. As long as they aren't hurting anybody else, though, it's their life to live. Not mine or yours or anyone elses.

jag

[jaguarr]

Wrong, Jesus said go AND SIN NO MORE, but lets not talk about what Jesus said, since you don't care

He also preached love and acceptance. I'm no expert on the bible (we can get Wilhelm in here to school us if you want), but I believe most of the predominant beliefs around homosexuality that stem from biblical writings revolve mostly around the writings of Paul, who was also an advocate of misogyny and slavery, so, yeah....


jag

[Demon Within]

PC is killing the world.

[Riding Ghost]

Sure I would. As long as they aren't trying to oppress anyone or push their ideals on others (such as through say, legislation), then I have absolutely no problems with them believing whatever they want to believe. The trouble is, most extremists of any kind have a hard time not trying to instigate discrimination against those that are different from them, don't they? Advocating equal treatment of all human beings by other human beings isn't "weak". It's possibly one of the most difficult positions to maintain on a personal level because there are things people do every day that we find distasteful or deplorable. As long as they aren't hurting anybody else, though, it's their life to live. Not mine or yours or anyone elses.

jag

BWAAAHAAAA
Thanks, your description of an extremist...is you.

"or push their ideals on others (such as through say, legislation)"
THAT is exactly what your side is doing on this very issue.

[jaguarr]

BWAAAHAAAA
Thanks, your description of an extremist...is you.

"or push their ideals on others (such as through say, legislation)"
THAT is exactly what your side is doing on this very issue.

Hmmm, I would just like for everyone to respect one another's ideals and not discriminate against one another for any reason. How extreme of me. :whatever:

jag

[Demon Within]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2954480

[jaguarr]

Brownback doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected. Nice way for him to get his name in the papers, though.

jag

[Demon Within]

Brownback doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected. Nice way for him to get his name in the papers, though.

jag

Your right he doesnt have a 500 million dollar bank roll supporting him.
Considering the silence of the presidential candidates on the issue though it seems they might also agree with Gen. Pace.

[jaguarr]

Your right he doesnt have a 500 million dollar bank roll supporting him.
Considering the silence of the presidential candidates on the issue though it seems they might also agree with Gen. Pace.

I'd never assume silence for agreement. I'm more inclined to think that it's not wanting to associate themselves with Pace at this point since he's become such a political hotbutton. Brownback can barely get people to even pay attention to him, big bankroll or not, so this is an easy way for him to get publicity. I have no doubt the subject of gay marriage, and possibly even gays in the military, will come up during the election debates, though. There's a time and place to discuss everything, but it's too early in the process for candidates to get too carried away with the subject.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

PC is killing the world.

no, when you think about it, it's bigotry and blind acceptance of religious teachings.

seriously...think about it.

[Demon Within]

I'd never assume silence for agreement. I'm more inclined to think that it's not wanting to associate themselves with Pace at this point since he's become such a political hotbutton. Brownback can barely get people to even pay attention to him, big bankroll or not, so this is an easy way for him to get publicity. I have no doubt the subject of gay marriage, and possibly even gays in the military, will come up during the election debates, though. There's a time and place to discuss everything, but it's too early in the process for candidates to get too carried away with the subject.

jag


It will come up but I doubt we get an answer from them until they get to office.

Presidential debates are not what they used to be. Now its a forum for them to read pre made speeches instead of being taken to task on where they want to go an what they stand for.

[jaguarr]

It will come up but I doubt we get an answer from them until they get to office.

Presidential debates are not what they used to be. Now its a forum for them to read pre made speeches instead of being taken to task on where they want to go an what they stand for.

I don't know. I think this election might be different. With people like Obama, Dodd, Edwards, Giuliani, Brownback and Romney involved, all of whom have demonstrated that they're very willing to speak their mind for better or for worse, it could get interesting. Hillary and McCain seem to be the ones that are always looking for the middle-of-the-road popular answer that will appeal to the most people.

jag

[Sandman138]

It will come up but I doubt we get an answer from them until they get to office.

Presidential debates are not what they used to be. Now its a forum for them to read pre made speeches instead of being taken to task on where they want to go an what they stand for.

Somebody doesn't know how things work. We don't get answers from Presidents once they get into office. No, we will get a vague pledge during the debates... then when they get into the Oval Office, they will sit on their ass and figure out which nubile young aide they will face ****.

[kane9321]

i dont give a crap..as long as they got my back it dosent matter

[Demon Within]

Somebody doesn't know how things work. We don't get answers from Presidents once they get into office. No, we will get a vague pledge during the debates... then when they get into the Oval Office, they will sit on their ass and figure out which nubile young aide they will face ****.


Is trying to demoralize the other person they only way you are able to make a point?

Doing nothing WOULD be giving an answer. If a candidate is asked about if they believe gays should be able to marry an they respond by dodging the issue then when they get the to white house they do nothing you now have your response: They dont care or dont agree with it.

[Demon Within]

I don't know. I think this election might be different. With people like Obama, Dodd, Edwards, Giuliani, Brownback and Romney involved, all of whom have demonstrated that they're very willing to speak their mind for better or for worse, it could get interesting. Hillary and McCain seem to be the ones that are always looking for the middle-of-the-road popular answer that will appeal to the most people.

jag


We better get a real debate this time around. The Bush/Kerry "debate" was a mockery an embarrassment.

[jaguarr]

We better get a real debate this time around. The Bush/Kerry "debate" was a mockery an embarrassment.

The wild card in all of this to me is Obama. He seems to be willing to go places in his discussions with a level of candidness that other candidates find uncomfortable when it's opportune for him. I think when it turns time to really let the discourse begins, we're going to see some interesting strategy from him. He may not be a long time Washington insider like some of these guys, but he knows how to play the game very, very well. He's been building buzz about himself and making his name known, and letting small snippets of his policy leak out. He's got people so antsy to really know more about him at this point that when he starts speaking he's going to have their rapt attention, no matter their particular political affiliation. I just have this feeling he's going to change the rules a bit when it comes to debate and discussing the issues. We'll see.

jag

[Sandman138]

It is your opinion that there is nothing wrong with being gay in the first place.

Kind of like how it's my opinion that no race is objectively supperior to any other or that women are more than sex objects. But I guess it's selfish of me to impose my terrible opinion on those poor souls over at the KKK, what did they ever do to the n*****s?

Others have a different opinion, as I know you are full aware.

http://www.ljworld.com/photos/2001/04/19/FredPhelps.jpg
They sure do.

In fact those with the different opinion have human history,

Do you really want me to show you the list of how many "great Western minds" liked to step on the right foot and do the wrong thing with other dudes?

biology

If your understanding of biology doesn't go past a high-school introductory class, maybe... but even then, you'd be at a loss to explain the biological function of the placement of the male G-Spot.

and the belief systems of most all the world (relegion) on there side.

Abrahamic, maybe (and even then, the Jews actually believe all us goyems who bugger each other are getting a first class ticket to the pearly gates), once you step outside the realm of "contractual" religions, your claim falls to ****.

You have your own feelings persuaded by the current system of sociatal beliefs and cultural trends on your side of the opinion thing.

And, you know, actually knowing many GLBTs and finding them much better company and than their outspoken critics.

I don't see what makes your opinion superior to the others.

I don't understand why folks feel victimized by the idea of equality.

[Demon Within]

The wild card in all of this to me is Obama. He seems to be willing to go places in his discussions with a level of candidness that other candidates find uncomfortable when it's opportune for him. I think when it turns time to really let the discourse begins, we're going to see some interesting strategy from him. He may not be a long time Washington insider like some of these guys, but he knows how to play the game very, very well. He's been building buzz about himself and making his name known, and letting small snippets of his policy leak out. He's got people so antsy to really know more about him at this point that when he starts speaking he's going to have their rapt attention, no matter their particular political affiliation. I just have this feeling he's going to change the rules a bit when it comes to debate and discussing the issues. We'll see.

jag


So you are giving him the edge over Clinton im assuming? At this point unless Dean enters the race dems have the presidency locked up already. The lack of strong contenders from the republicans combined with intense media coverage of Obama an Clinton (some of it because one is a psuedo minority an the other a woman) has given them too strong of a headstart to overcome.

I know this the debate should not be pre written speeches an practiced lines. I want tough questions with "shooting from the hip" responses because thats when you really get to know someone.

Edit so no harm done.

[jaguarr]

So you are giving him the edge over Clinton im assuming? At this point unless Dean enters the race dems have the presidency locked up already. The lack of strong contenders from the republicans combined with intense media coverage of Obama an Clinton (some of it because one is a psuedo minority an the other a woman) has given them too strong of a headstart to overcome.

I know this the debate should not be pre written speeches an practiced lines. I want tough questions with "shooting from the hip" responses because thats when you really get to know someone.

Edit so no harm done.

I like Obama, yes. Clinton's a strong player, though, and can't be discounted. But...she never really speaks to her personal viewpoints. She just tries to find the answer that will piss the least people off and garner her the most votes. She's disgenuine, and she does stick to the typical style of discourse we've become accustomed to. However, she IS married to Bill who is possibly one of the most brilliant political strategists to ever set foot in the U.S. political arena. He, himself, ran his campaign on open and honest talk so he could influence her to loosen up a bit and speak more genuinely. Personally, I just have this feeling that Obama is going to sort of force the other candidates to do just that, and it will be the downfall of a lot of them because they don't know how to do it without coming off sounding like a-holes. Who knows how truly "off the hip" the commentary will be, though. Obama, while very honest and forthright, also does his share of calculated discourse even if it sounds more open and honest than everyone elses. Gonna be interesting. Personally, I hope that they focus on HARD issues like the HUGE deficit we're in, a viable plan for our military presence in the Middle East, education reform, health care, social security, rampant offshoring, rampant lobbyist power in Washington, and the like; issues that directly impact our future and our economy. Crap like gay marriage is a non-issue, to be honest, because that decision is really something that's left to the states anyway, so it's irrelevant at a Federal level. It's just something that gets brought up to distract from the fact that the other issues are lacking answers from the very people that brought it up to begin with.

jag

[Demon Within]

I like Obama, yes. Clinton's a strong player, though, and can't be discounted. But...she never really speaks to her personal viewpoints. She just tries to find the answer that will piss the least people off and garner her the most votes. She's disgenuine, and she does stick to the typical style of discourse we've become accustomed to. However, she IS married to Bill who is possibly one of the most brilliant political strategists to ever set foot in the U.S. political arena. He, himself, ran his campaign on open and honest talk so he could influence her to loosen up a bit and speak more genuinely. Personally, I just have this feeling that Obama is going to sort of force the other candidates to do just that, and it will be the downfall of a lot of them because they don't know how to do it without coming off sounding like a-holes. Who knows how truly "off the hip" the commentary will be, though. Obama, while very honest and forthright, also does his share of calculated discourse even if it sounds more open and honest than everyone elses. Gonna be interesting. Personally, I hope that they focus on HARD issues like the HUGE deficit we're in, a viable plan for our military presence in the Middle East, education reform, health care, social security, rampant offshoring, rampant lobbyist power in Washington, and the like; issues that directly impact our future and our economy. Crap like gay marriage is a non-issue, to be honest, because that decision is really something that's left to the states anyway, so it's irrelevant at a Federal level. It's just something that gets brought up to distract from the fact that the other issues are lacking answers from the very people that brought it up to begin with.

jag


One "hard" issue I would like some of the spot light on is our governments corruption on multiple levels from state to federal. From my P.O.V. we are now seeing signs that democracy has the same shortcommings as all the other forms of government an that is that greed an lies rule the day. Are we going to try an put a stop to it now before it goes to far or pretend its a non issue until it tears everything apart?

[Memphis Slim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis Slim http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11378361#post11378361)
So all the linguists in the military are gay, now?? :dry:


Sinewave: nope, but there have been quite a few and it's a shame to fire someone with that unique skill set and willingness to serve their country because of something as trivial as sexual preference



But didn't they know going in, that they had to keep it to themselves?? Look.....like it or not team chemistry is important to how a unit functions. Trust, respect, a comfort level are all vital. Especially in the military. Like it or not homosexuality is not considered normal by most people. thus causing a lot of "discomfort" in the unity. Even those that "say" they are cool with it, would not want their kids coming home with that news. If they don't tell, no one will know. Thus unit is spared the friction. And this is NOT on par with racial or religious issues.....I don't buy that.

[jaguarr]

One "hard" issue I would like some of the spot light on is our governments corruption on multiple levels from state to federal. From my P.O.V. we are now seeing signs that democracy has the same shortcommings as all the other forms of government an that is that greed an lies rule the day. Are we going to try an put a stop to it now before it goes to far or pretend its a non issue until it tears everything apart?

Well, we've allowed democracy in this country deteriorate through corruption, religion and corporate interest to the point that it's been bastardized almost to the point of being a sort of hybrid theocracy rather than an actual democracy. The Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for letting this happen, IMHO.

jag

[Kyalesyin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis Slim
So all the linguists in the military are gay, now??




But didn't they know going in, that they had to keep it to themselves?? Look.....like it or not team chemistry is important to how a unit functions. Trust, respect, a comfort level are all vital. Especially in the military. Like it or not homosexuality is not considered normal by most people. thus causing a lot of "discomfort" in the unity. Even those that "say" they are cool with it, would not want their kids coming home with that news. If they don't tell, no one will know. Thus unit is spared the friction. And this is NOT on par with racial or religious issues.....I don't buy that.

All this stuff about 'team chemistry'... I get the feeling that if you're under fire, it doesn't matter who the **** is next to you as long as they're on your side. I honestly don't think that in the heat of the moment you're gonna stop and think 'Actually, nah. He's gay.' You just act.

[sinewave]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis Slim http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11378361#post11378361)
So all the linguists in the military are gay, now?? :dry:




But didn't they know going in, that they had to keep it to themselves?? Look.....like it or not team chemistry is important to how a unit functions. Trust, respect, a comfort level are all vital. Especially in the military. Like it or not homosexuality is not considered normal by most people. thus causing a lot of "discomfort" in the unity. Even those that "say" they are cool with it, would not want their kids coming home with that news. If they don't tell, no one will know. Thus unit is spared the friction. And this is NOT on par with racial or religious issues.....I don't buy that.

the ones i'm referring to are the ones that were either weeded out or exposed by accident, against the servicemember's will, all over a ridiculous case of what boils down to bigotry.

[USMC]

Because those are the rules they agreed to when they joined just like you are here an have to obey the rules or get banned. Its just that simple.

Some people actually don't figure out their sexuality until AFTER they've signed up.

I know, strange, but true!

If only life was "just that simple".:o

[USMC]

Why is it they feel the need to make themselves openly gay in service?

Honor, courage, integrity. The military wants its members to uphold these virtues above all else. Hiding, sneaking, and lying are contradictory to those virtues. Again, if only the world you live in were "just that simple".

Is it going to help the mission? No it wont.

It won't hurt it, either.

Is it going to bring peace to the world? No it wont.

Neither will asking American military servicemembers to be liars.

If only everything were "just that simple". :whatever:

[USMC]

Why do I think they dont allow it? Because I dont think members of the unit will fully except them thats why. I think they would be harrassed an mistreated.

News flash: even servicemembers who are straight get harrassed and mistreated. Every nation on this planet that has allowed homosexuals to serve openly have had NO PROBLEMS. Why do you belive America will? Guess you don't have as much faith in this nation as some people...



I believe its a greater headache to allow it then it is to ban it altogether.

Nothing worthwhile is easy, buddy. But I guess all the wars and battles that Amercan men and women have died over to grant greater freedoms in this country were a "greater headache" than what we got from it.

Your short-sighted opinion does nothing but disservice to those that have died. But an opinion is an opinion, nontheless.

[USMC]

Gang up on me I could care less. You dont like my view to bad. I think the military is saving lives by not letting them be openly gay. Does it suck they cant express who they are? Of course it does. Suppression hurts. Dying hurts worse.

Imagine what families would do if there son/daughter was not rescued in combat because others knew there sexuality an decided to save the "straight" person first! I 100% believe this would occur an my guess is so does the government so instead of fighting a ton of legal battles they dont allow.

It saves lives, I agree with them even if it suppresses a piece of who they are.


http://www.worldinprogress.org/wip/images/few_good_men.jpg

"I believe in doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, so that I can SAVE LIVES."

Please...:whatever:

[nosebleed.]

USMC = my hero

And the theory that keeping gays out of the military saves lives is pretty much BS. Let me show you...

The word "straight" in this quote imagine what families would do if there son/daughter was not rescued in combat because others knew there sexuality an decided to save the "straight" person first! can be substituted with many different denominations of character/ethnicity..etc.

imagine what families would do if there son/daughter was not rescued in combat because others knew there race an decided to save the white person first!

imagine what families would do if there son/daughter was not rescued in combat because others knew there religion an decided to save the catholic person first!

imagine what families would do if there son/daughter was not rescued in combat because others knew there age an decided to save the young person first!

imagine what families would do if there son/daughter was not rescued in combat because others knew there sex an decided to save the female person first!

I could go on for days...

[Memphis Slim]

All this stuff about 'team chemistry'... I get the feeling that if you're under fire, it doesn't matter who the **** is next to you as long as they're on your side. I honestly don't think that in the heat of the moment you're gonna stop and think 'Actually, nah. He's gay.' You just act.


Homosexuals have always been in the military. But they did not tell. There's a reason for that. People like you always throw out that "well in the heat of battle" argument. Well I suppose in that situation a homosexual wouldn't mind being saved by a straight guy either. It's life or death at that point. I'm talking about group coheshion that "MUST" take place "BEFORE" that scenario even happens. You "MUST" be comfortable with the men in your unit!! This issue breaks down that unity. People have strong convictions on this, based on moral codes. You're asking people to go against their beliefs?

This will never work.

[nosebleed.]

You will never be completely comfortable with all the men in your unit. There will be differences in people no matter what. The only way to counter this is to hand pick your unit...and even then there will be differences...its human nature. Some people have stronger convictions against people of different race than gay people, some with religiously different people. Each individual has their moral priorities. "Group cohesion" will never be 100%, homosexuality would just be another factor along with all the others.

[Memphis Slim]

You will never be completely comfortable with all the men in your unit. There will be differences in people no matter what. The only way to counter this is to hand pick your unit...and even then there will be differences...its human nature. Some people have stronger convictions against people of different race than gay people, some with religiously different people. Each individual has their moral priorities. "Group cohesion" will never be 100%, homosexuality would just be another factor along with all the others.



You won't become comfortable with everybody on every level. But sexuality is a very different and guarded area for most people. Especially men. I might not like the vulgar language of a teammate or that he doesn't bathe or he smokes. But if I know he'll never look at me in a sexual way, you can deal with that. Sexuality is what takes this to another realm or level. And I don't play the race card on this issue. There are ex-homosexuals out there living straight lives now.....married with kids and happy. Which tells me it's NOt genetic. It's a choice.

[Spider-Bite]

It's time to abolish the don't ask, dont' tell policy. It's a disgrace to all of our gay soldiers. They are fighting for our freedom, it's time we fight for theirs.

[nosebleed.]

You won't become comfortable with everybody on every level. But sexuality is a very different and guarded area for most people. Especially men. I might not like the vulgar language of a teammate or that he doesn't bathe or he smokes. But if I know he'll never look at me in a sexual way, you can deal with that. Sexuality is what takes this to another realm or level. And I don't play the race card on this issue. There are ex-homosexuals out there living straight lives now.....married with kids and happy. Which tells me it's NOt genetic. It's a choice.

LOL..not genetic? I've known girls AND guys who've experimented in their sexuality...its called curiosity. I bet those "ex-homosexuals" you refer to fall in the "ex-curious" category and still have curiosity towards the same sex but suppress those tendencies to keep stability in their families. Now...I AM playing the race card because it is just as big a factor as someone's sexuality. Racism is alive and well in the military and troops who deploy often form racial cliques. The major difference between sexuality and race is that you can hide one but not the other.

[Spider-Bite]

You won't become comfortable with everybody on every level. But sexuality is a very different and guarded area for most people. Especially men. I might not like the vulgar language of a teammate or that he doesn't bathe or he smokes. But if I know he'll never look at me in a sexual way, you can deal with that. Sexuality is what takes this to another realm or level. And I don't play the race card on this issue. There are ex-homosexuals out there living straight lives now.....married with kids and happy. Which tells me it's NOt genetic. It's a choice.


You have to be very insecure with your own sexuality to make that retarded comment. If you were secure with your sexuality, you'd know that you have no choice in being straight, and if you can't choose to stop being straight, you must not be able to be gay.

Do you think they secretly prefer women, and they just pretend to prefer men? It's a proven fact that homo sexuality is not a choice.

You bigots just need to get over it. They aren't hurting you. Quit acting like babies and grow up.

[Spider-Bite]

Homosexuals have always been in the military. But they did not tell. There's a reason for that. People like you always throw out that "well in the heat of battle" argument. Well I suppose in that situation a homosexual wouldn't mind being saved by a straight guy either. It's life or death at that point. I'm talking about group coheshion that "MUST" take place "BEFORE" that scenario even happens. You "MUST" be comfortable with the men in your unit!! This issue breaks down that unity. People have strong convictions on this, based on moral codes. You're asking people to go against their beliefs?

This will never work.


My sister is joining the military very soon. She's a lesbian and she's going to be fighting for your freedom, with her life. Can't you fight for her's with your vote?

Pretty soon you guys will be asking for a don't ask, don't tell policy for atheists.

Besides if they aren't capable of forming that unity with a gay person, then they probably aren't that useful anyways. How are they going to fight for freedom when they dont' even believe in it to begin with? Can you really trust somebody like that? I can't. What happens if they encounter gay civillains in another country? Or people with different religous beliefs? Or women that actually know how to read?

[nosebleed.]

What happens if they encounter gay civillains in another country?

They make fun of them just like they do here..."Hey man, check it out...those dudes are holding hands!!". I've seen it. In some of middle east countries the men often hold hands and emote physically with each other. Does it mean they are gay? I honestly don't know...but American troops do make fun of it.

[sinewave]

They make fun of them just like they do here..."Hey man, check it out...those dudes are holding hands!!". I've seen it. In some of middle east countries the men often hold hands and emote physically with each other. Does it mean they are gay? I honestly don't know...but American troops do make fun of it.

i've heard it's common in italy for straight male friends to hold hands. different cultures, different norms.

[Memphis Slim]

LOL..not genetic? I've known girls AND guys who've experimented in their sexuality...its called curiosity. I bet those "ex-homosexuals" you refer to fall in the "ex-curious" category and still have curiosity towards the same sex but suppress those tendencies to keep stability in their families.

Your double standard is amusing. You can accept whole-heartedly that some can go from straight to homosexual. But you won't (not can't) believe that a homosexual can change. No way would that happen, right?:whatever: You'll give that same ol' tired well he must have been gay all along. Well maybe that Homosexual was straight all along??? The door swings both ways. It's a choice.



Now...I AM playing the race card because it is just as big a factor as someone's sexuality. Racism is alive and well in the military and troops who deploy often form racial cliques. The major difference between sexuality and race is that you can hide one but not the other.


I find it pathetic to try and hitch the homosexual bus to the plight of blacks. No comparison. News Flash! I know racism still exists! It always will. Truth be known, homosexual slave owners preyed on black male slaves back in the day just like the straight slave owners preyed on black women. Now all of sudden they share the black man's plight? No way.....

[Memphis Slim]

They make fun of them just like they do here..."Hey man, check it out...those dudes are holding hands!!". I've seen it. In some of middle east countries the men often hold hands and emote physically with each other. Does it mean they are gay? I honestly don't know...but American troops do make fun of it.


Making fun of anyone is wrong. But it's also wrong to force people into a moral code they don't agree with. That's what they are trying to do. If you want to be homosexual fine. But you can't make me say that I think it's right. That's just crazy! Freedom of speech????

[The Chairman]

Making fun of anyone is wrong. But it's also wrong to force people into a moral code they don't agree with. That's what they are trying to do. If you want to be homosexual fine. But you can't make me say that I think it's right. That's just crazy! Freedom of speech????

You see, I personally don't see anything wrong with it. I'll admit at first the act of homosexuality does seem a bit abonrmal compared to what you're used to seeing (a man and a woman), but once you realize they're experienceing th exact same feelings straight couples feel, that's where the normality of it all comes in to play.

Also, if you can't comprehend that homosexuality isn't by choice, than you must have fialed biology. Why are most homosexual people shocked and uncomfortable to find out that they're gay? Why is a common reaction homosexuals have when they first find out is what God would think of them? If it was by choice, things like that wouldn't be on their minds?

It's this backwards form of thinking that is promoting the hatred felt towards America today.

[sinewave]

Making fun of anyone is wrong. But it's also wrong to force people into a moral code they don't agree with. That's what they are trying to do. If you want to be homosexual fine. But you can't make me say that I think it's right. That's just crazy! Freedom of speech????

nobody cares what you think about homosexuals. your opinions on it or attitude towards it should not infringe on gay people's rights, freedoms or ability to be who they are and live a happy and productive life. this law limits the freedoms of american citizens who want to fight and die for their country. there's no possible excuse for the bigotry you're advocating. set aside the false morailty of these beliefs that were pounded into your head by religious dogma and accept the fact that whether you think it's a choice or not, homosexuals are still a part of the human condition and should have the same rights as anyone else, especially if they're willing to die for their country.

[Mr Sparkle]

Making fun of anyone is wrong. But it's also wrong to force people into a moral code they don't agree with. That's what they are trying to do. If you want to be homosexual fine. But you can't make me say that I think it's right. That's just crazy! Freedom of speech????

how are they forcing anyone into a moral code?:huh: :down
seriously....how? once you answer that, I'm cool with you.

[jaguarr]

Making fun of anyone is wrong. But it's also wrong to force people into a moral code they don't agree with. That's what they are trying to do. If you want to be homosexual fine. But you can't make me say that I think it's right. That's just crazy! Freedom of speech????

I 100% agree. Freedom of speech and thought is incredibly important. I don't think anyone would want to be forced to say or believe that something is right if it goes against their morals. But, theirs aren't the only morals involved in the equation, either. There are others such as gay people who just want to live their lives like anyone else without being subjected to hate speech or actions or discrimination just for being who they are. Having to contend with such things would be enduring bigotry and that isn't fair, either, because then they would be having other people's morals pushed on THEM! So while no one should have to be forced to change their moral code, nor should anyone else as a result of other people's moral codes. It's a slippery slope and tricky stuff. So, you don't have to approve of their lifestyles, no. But, you don't have to prevent them from having just as full a life as yourself, either. Call it "worry about your own **** instead". ;)

jag

[terry78]

Point blank, if you don't agree with homosexuality, it's fine. But the most they would require is that you just respect them for it, and leave it at that. Though I do feel some avid supporters of homosexuality make those that don't agree with it out to be these horrible monsters when they aren't. I remember one guy called into some radio talk show and mentioned that he didn't agree with the lifestyle, but didn't have a problem with gay people, and callers basically bombarded him with comments of him being a hatemonger bigot.

[Addendum]

Making fun of anyone is wrong. But it's also wrong to force people into a moral code they don't agree with. That's what they are trying to do. If you want to be homosexual fine. But you can't make me say that I think it's right. That's just crazy! Freedom of speech????
Why should the gender of whomever one ****s affect one's ability to hold a job, the right to join the military and protect their country, and other such rights and choices that straight people do?

Unless you're in a gay relationship, it's not your ****ing business.

[Kritish]

Until I see some study that tells me that gays are somehow less able to kill people I'll say let them join.

[terry78]

"Gays in the army wanna fight? Let 'em fight, 'cause I ain't fightin'!" - Chris Rock

[terry78]

"Gays in the army wanna fight? Let 'em fight, 'cause I ain't fightin'!" - Chris Rock

[nosebleed.]

Your double standard is amusing. You can accept whole-heartedly that some can go from straight to homosexual. But you won't (not can't) believe that a homosexual can change. No way would that happen, right? You'll give that same ol' tired well he must have been gay all along. Well maybe that Homosexual was straight all along??? The door swings both ways. It's a choice.

People don't go straight to homosexual. They were forced their whole lives to accept the norm of heterosexuality until they came to accept what they really were. You are being very ignorant...do you even know any gay people?? I'd like you to go to them with that BS that they have a "choice".

I find it pathetic to try and hitch the homosexual bus to the plight of blacks. No comparison. News Flash! I know racism still exists! It always will. Truth be known, homosexual slave owners preyed on black male slaves back in the day just like the straight slave owners preyed on black women. Now all of sudden they share the black man's plight? No way.....

Yes..because black people are the ONLY minority in the United States. Get out of here with that BS because other races are shown as much racism in the military as black people...get off your high horse. I didn't single out any particular race but was just saying that race is one of the things that make people different...what the hell is so special about sexuality? YOU are the one that singled out RACE as something to cry about. Have you ever even been in the military?

[PhotoJones]

You see, I personally don't see anything wrong with it. I'll admit at first the act of homosexuality does seem a bit abonrmal compared to what you're used to seeing (a man and a woman), but once you realize they're experienceing th exact same feelings straight couples feel, that's where the normality of it all comes in to play.

Also, if you can't comprehend that homosexuality isn't by choice, than you must have fialed biology. Why are most homosexual people shocked and uncomfortable to find out that they're gay? Why is a common reaction homosexuals have when they first find out is what God would think of them? If it was by choice, things like that wouldn't be on their minds?

It's this backwards form of thinking that is promoting the hatred felt towards America today.

that's a good post. :up:

on the topic, one of my very best friends is gay, and it took him a long time to come to terms with it. he went through the whole, "why did God make me this way, i don't want to be attracted to men". now he;s happy, and in a stable, committed relationship, and fully embraces his sexuality. but for a while, it was tough.

[The Chairman]

that's a good post. :up:

on the topic, one of my very best friends is gay, and it took him a long time to come to terms with it. he went through the whole, "why did God make me this way, i don't want to be attracted to men". now he;s happy, and in a stable, committed relationship, and fully embraces his sexuality. but for a while, it was tough.

Oh, thanks for the compliment.

Like I said, the first thought is what God thinks of them. It's hard to come terms with at first. I'd be shocked if I was gay, especially since my family are Conservative Catholics (I'm a nondemonationalist liberal Christian with a deist-esque philosophy towards religion, if that makes any sense). But you know, I'd get over it, because I don't believe God is against gays.

[Sandman138]

Making fun of anyone is wrong. But it's also wrong to force people into a moral code they don't agree with. That's what they are trying to do. If you want to be homosexual fine. But you can't make me say that I think it's right. That's just crazy! Freedom of speech????

I think I just died of an irony overdose... cause I just found myself in a gay bar called Heaven.

[Speedball]

I think I just died of an irony overdose... cause I just found myself in a gay bar called Heaven.
He was there.
I saw him while I was scouting for sailors.

[Mr Sparkle]

how are they forcing anyone into a moral code?:huh: :down
seriously....how? once you answer that, I'm cool with you.

:confused:

[nosebleed.]

meh...its a ridiculous statement. The same guy also says that homesexuality is a choice. He probably also thinks you can get HIV from somebody staring at you mean.

[Lurk]

^Only if they're staring at your ass. Otherwise, you're safe.

[jaguarr]

*stares at celldog's ass in a mean fashion* :cmad:

jag

[terry78]

I actually discovered that gay owned businesses here in Chicago is an untapped market as far as hardware and software. None of the guys on my team have set up appointments with any of them, and damn it if I lose out on clientele because people have some kind of issue with it.

[sinewave]

I actually discovered that gay owned businesses here in Chicago is an untapped market as far as hardware and software. None of the guys on my team have set up appointments with any of them, and damn it if I lose out on clientele because people have some kind of issue with it.

cha-ching!!! mine that gay territory! mine it with your finger!

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL Gay businesses are untapped.

[terry78]

*ba-dum-bump* Stop me if you've heard this one.

[Synch]

Some guys are hypocrites. especially about homosexuality.

[The Chairman]

I myself do not have a problem with homosexuality at all, be it male or female. Aside from the gender issue, there is no difference between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. Both are experiencing the exact same emotions, which is love in its truest form. Just because who they are in love with differs from conventional standards does not make them any less of a person. I'll admit that seeing two men OR women of the same sex kiss makes me feel slightly uncomfortanble, but I don't stop them. They're allowed to express their love, and I completely accept that.

That being said, to get this thread back on topic, I do know a lot of people who are hypocrtical on homosexuality. I have friends who I've seen completely denounce homosexuality on the male side, then go ****ing ga-ga with joy when they see two women engaging in sexual activites with each other, and I find it sickening.

If hypocrisy was a sin, God would be sending a far greater amount of people to Hell.

[terry78]

We as guys are always going to be hypocritical about stuff. When it benefits us, we're for it. When it doesn't, we aren't. That's how we work.

[Kevin]

We as guys are always going to be hypocritical about stuff. When it benefits us, we're for it. When it doesn't, we aren't. That's how we work.
This is why most guys suck, and the rest of them suck... wait...

[Abaddon]

People in general are hypocrites about a lot of things. In the homosexuality issue, it's because there aren't too many manly gay guys and thus anything gay is associated with effeminate, wimpy, men.

[I_Hate_U_All]

In a bare bones reality sense it's very practical common sense. A big muscular gay man can rape a dude so most dudes fear that reality. Whereas a lesbian probably won't rape a dude, but even if she did, I personally doubt the dude would object to that in all seriousness.

to sum up my thoughts on this, Double standards it may be in a intellectual sense, but in practical bare bones reality sense, guys aren't afraid of being raped by lesbians.

[Synch]

People in general are hypocrites about a lot of things. In the homosexuality issue, it's because there aren't too many manly gay guys and thus anything gay is associated with effeminate, wimpy, men.


Sadly, you have a point . . . kinda.

[Babs Gordon]

... I think I got banned in this thread once.

[kainedamo]

Were you naughty?


I apologize Babs :( I'm in a weird mood tonight! I'll stop e-harrasing you!

[Babs Gordon]

I wasn't trying to be naughty. But I was naughty by accident. I was explaining why Y Tu Mama Tambien's threesome scene with two guys and a girl was hot and I posted a picture with a little bit of bare-@ss action. It was suggestive, but in my opinion no more suggestive than any of the other smut people post. Especially avatars that MOVE.

Anywho, it was a temporary ban, but lesson learned.

[Crooklyn]

I remember the pic. 1 girl, 2 guys. Nude.

And I'm pretty sure one of the guys was either cupping the girl's breast, or fingering her. Something like that. It's hazy. :o

[terry78]

^Says the man that saved the .gif for his personal "stash" immediately after.

[Babs Gordon]

No the guy had his hand on her butt. It was also a blurry screencap which obscured... almost everything.

For god's sake, I've been posting here ban-free for two and a half years. I'm not stupid enough to post that. That meaning what you just suggested.

[Abaddon]

The Commish was greatly disappointed.:csad:

[kainedamo]

I wasn't trying to be naughty. But I was naughty by accident. I was explaining why Y Tu Mama Tambien's threesome scene with two guys and a girl was hot and I posted a picture with a little bit of bare-@ss action. It was suggestive, but in my opinion no more suggestive than any of the other smut people post. Especially avatars that MOVE.

Anywho, it was a temporary ban, but lesson learned.

It's odd that people can get away with posting far worse pictures in the sexiest woman threads.

Plus, the banners on this website have become awfully suggestive. I keep getting half nude women on the banners propositioning me!

I think I'll continue with my e-harrasment. So, you WERE naughty. I think you need spanked, Babs! You need to learn your lesson!!

[Kyalesyin]

I need to find some way to be able to see these 'suggestive adds' that everyone keeps talking about. I just get 'free laptop here' adds.

[kainedamo]

I keep getting this naked woman on the banner asking me to join a dating site. And my computer is in the kitchen where my family can see it.

[Kyalesyin]

Thats kinda funny.

[squeekness]

Do people honestly think that girls who look like that even need to use a dating service? Some of those ads look more like escort service ads and yet this is supposed to be an all ages board... :rolleyes:

[Babs Gordon]

^That avatar rules a lot.

Why join a dating service for money when there's myspace and SHH! for free?

:dry:

[squeekness]

LOL, thanks. :D

And I do agree. I've met lots of interesting folks here. Of course, none of them live by me....

[Babs Gordon]

guitarsingerguy introduced me to one of his friends through the net and we really hit it off. we were in touch for a couple months but work and distance got in the way.

i think the lesson i've learned is "stay local"

[Kyalesyin]

guitarsingerguy introduced me to one of his friends through the net and we really hit it off. we were in touch for a couple months but work and distance got in the way.

i think the lesson i've learned is "stay local"

I met my wife online- we were 300 miles apart, and neither of us had our own transport, or jobs. We managed to make it work.

[Babs Gordon]

I think I reach too far. Jeff was 1500 miles away. I'd like to think it was his insane schedule and not the distance that made it fizzle, but who knows. He's basically vanished from my life so how am I supposed to know?

[jaguarr]

guitarsingerguy introduced me to one of his friends through the net and we really hit it off. we were in touch for a couple months but work and distance got in the way.

i think the lesson i've learned is "stay local"

Unlike Kaz, I met my wife in real life, but we lived over 3,000 miles apart at the time. Distance is but a small obstacle when two people truly want to be together. You'll find the right one, Babs. Hang in there and just enjoy your life in the meantime.

jag

[kainedamo]

I would have no intention of dating anyone on the SHH! You all live too far away, for one thing. Except Babs. Babs, I think we can make our relationship work long distance.

[Kyalesyin]

I would have no intention of dating anyone on the SHH! You all live too far away, for one thing. Except Babs. Babs, I think we can make our relationship work long distance.

No offense buddy but Babs needs a man.

[kane9321]

two girls having sex,kissing in general..is just awsome.I cant watch two dudes going at it..well because I dont like guys

[Machx72]

No offense buddy but Babs needs a man.

I think you just ruined his hope of ever having a g/f:huh:.

[Machx72]

^That avatar rules a lot.

Why join a dating service for money when there's myspace and SHH! for free?

:dry:

I used Xanga for that once :up:.

Well, more like the girl used Xanga for that, and I ended up being her target.

Failed miserably.

[Babs Gordon]

I think for right now I'm just going to enjoy being single. Sounds like a plan. The dizzying highs and crushing lows of my last two relationships were... a little chaotic. I prefer to be more balanced with my emotions.

[Erzengel]

No offense buddy but Babs needs a man.
:heart:

[kane9321]

Castro District down here in san fran..is where it's at...best pancake house in town

[squeekness]

two girls having sex,kissing in general..is just awsome.I cant watch two dudes going at it..well because I dont like guysIt's got to be a gender thing. I can't stand to watch two girls, but I can watch two guys. It's gotta be because I am a girl. :)

[jaguarr]

Castro District down here in san fran..is where it's at...best pancake house in town

The Castro District has some outstanding restaurants. They also have some really funny names that poke fun at the neighborhood. "The Sausage Factory". "Moby Dick's". "Frank N' Buns". :D "The Sausage Factory" has awesome Italian food, though. I also ate at a place in the Castro called "Catch". It's an outstanding seafood place that my crazy lesbian friends took me to when I was down there earlier this year. Great food!!!

jag

[jaguarr]

Double post! :cmad:

jag

[kane9321]

It's got to be a gender thing. I can't stand to watch two girls, but I can watch two guys. It's gotta be because I am a girl. :)

i think your right...it makes sense:woot:

[kane9321]

yo jag..next time you come to town bro..we'll hit the "anchor oyster bar"

awsome seafood,...fish right off the boat..its that fresh:)

[jaguarr]

yo jag..next time you come to town bro..we'll hit the "anchor oyster bar"

awsome seafood,...fish right off the boat..its that fresh:)


I've heard of that place, actually. It's supposed to have very good food. That could actually happen. :up:

jag

[kane9321]

its a little pricey.****e...its alot pricey..but ya get what you for no doubt about.it

[Calvin]

No offense buddy but Babs needs a man.
Blam!

[jaguarr]

Blam!

Yeah, that was like a shotgun blast to the face, wasn't it? :D

jag

[squeekness]

*dodges the juicy bits*

[Kyalesyin]

First thing that came to my head... I couldn't help it...

[kainedamo]

Yeah, that was like a shotgun blast to the face, wasn't it? :D

jag


Yeah, I was all like "WOW!!". I couldn't even speak for a full minute because of the shock.

Nevertheless, I will continue e-harrassing Babs till she admits her love.

[Machx72]

I love how this went from controversy over homosexuality to the Babs Dating Thread.

I think a new thread's coming.

It should be like those game shows, where the girl asks, "Contestant #1, what is your favorite type of food?" But doesn't know who she's talking to.

That'd be fun, just for the sake of watching Hype members think they have hope with a woman.

[The Lizard]

I think for right now I'm just going to enjoy being single. Sounds like a plan.

Hey Babs.....how you doin'?

http://cache.eonline.com/Features/Features/Friends/Encyclopedia/Images/joey.jpg

[kainedamo]

Leave Babs alone! She's mine! She's like, my new Vicki!!

[Erzengel]

^
:whatever:

*bangs on monitor*

C'mon SHH. Be more funny!!!

[Noir]

This was something i wondered about reading some of the posts in the gay marriage thread a while back and also just something Ive noticed in general on the boards
You'll often see a poster say that being a Gay male is wrong and unnatural and yet the very same poster will make comments about how cool and hot two girls doing it is

I know myself that i enjoy seeing two hot girls together in a movie but am not keen on seeing guys make out onscreen

Like anything there is different degrees of how comfortable we all are with it I'm just wondering if anyone else has felt or noticed this seeming double standard
I myself have many friends that are gay.. I have no problem with it.. Kissing in movies is just that.. Kissing, I'm not the one doing the kissing so why should I care..?

[Babs Gordon]

I think many threads regularly turn into "harass SHH! females/honor them/worship them/annoy them/single them out in general" threads simply because we seem uncommon (but really aren't). This is happening with Miranda Fox at the batboards and I'm pretty sure it's happened with DBella, Toven, AndthePickles, Kyalseyin, Daisy, Twylight (all other women) etc.

Life at SHH I suppose.

[kainedamo]

I know where you live.


No I don't :( I'm sorry. That's a horrible thing to say. I'll stop e-harrassing you from this moment on. It just sort of amuses me to act all creepy *shrugs*

[terry78]

I think many threads regularly turn into "harass SHH! females/honor them/worship them/annoy them/single them out in general" threads simply because we seem uncommon (but really aren't). This is happening with Miranda Fox at the batboards and I'm pretty sure it's happened with DBella, Toven, AndthePickles, Kyalseyin, Daisy, Twylight (all other women) etc.

Life at SHH I suppose.

Try the world. You in the minority, that's the score.

[jaguarr]

Try the world. You in the minority, that's the score.

I believe women outnumber men on a worldwide basis.

jag

[The Lizard]

I think many threads regularly turn into "harass SHH! females/honor them/worship them/annoy them/single them out in general" threads simply because we seem uncommon (but really aren't). This is happening with Miranda Fox at the batboards and I'm pretty sure it's happened with DBella, Toven, AndthePickles, Kyalseyin, Daisy, Twylight (all other women) etc.

Life at SHH I suppose.

I seem to remember Toven wallowing in it even before a lot of people knew she was female (or were willing to believe her claim, that is). :o

[squeekness]

I dunno, I don't feel that I was ever harrassed here when I let it be known I was a girl. *shrugs* Maybe it's because I am old.

[kainedamo]

Well, I certainly meant no offense. I was only joking around.

[mrvlknight21]

I am not hypocritical in my stane on the matter, although it does seem a majority of the guys that I know are.

[GunBlade]

I love you all. Give me hugs NOW.

[Kevin]

Ok.. *cries in horror*

[Drakon]

Truth be told, I had never really seen any of the females complain that they were being "singled out". Trust, if I had, I would have rectified the situation promptly.

[kainedamo]

That's quite surprising, Drakon.

Usually, girls can't enter a messageboard or chatroom without being harrassed. And the guys that do it annoy me. But when I do it, however, it's different!! Yes it is!! Because I don't mean it like that!

[Machx72]

I think many threads regularly turn into "harass SHH! females/honor them/worship them/annoy them/single them out in general" threads simply because we seem uncommon (but really aren't). This is happening with Miranda Fox at the batboards and I'm pretty sure it's happened with DBella, Toven, AndthePickles, Kyalseyin, Daisy, Twylight (all other women) etc.

Life at SHH I suppose.

Well, I have seen some instances where the females set themselves up for it, but more times than not, it's been the dudes starting it.

I also find it think it's kind of sad how much the other men flirt and suck up to the women on forums, too. It's as if they'd never seen one in person.

[kainedamo]

There isn't anything wrong with flirting.

Problems arrise when it crosses the line and just becomes harrassment, or a bunch of immature guys getting hot at the idea of singiling out a female on a message board. I've seen it happen before, long ago. A bunch of guys were actually saying about a female poster - "I'd like to do her" and "I wanna see her naked" and stuff. And the message board wasn't properly moderated, so the guys weren't banned or warned or anything. And the girl was very upset at the harrassment.

[Mister Sinister]

Ernest Gaines put it best - "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"

[kainedamo]

That sounds like hippie nonsense to me!!

[squeekness]

Ernest Gaines put it best - "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"
It's a sad but yet so very true statement. :(

[Mr. Credible]

i think everybody is hypocritical about it... ask, and 90% of guys will tell you that 2 girls kissing is hot, ask a girl, and they'll tell you that 2 guys kissing does nothing for them.

[squeekness]

That's why you see lesbians in regular porn, but to see two guys you have to go out of your way to find it. It's a gender thing.

[Golgo-13]

Well, I have seen some instances where the females set themselves up for it, but more times than not, it's been the dudes starting it.

I also find it think it's kind of sad how much the other men flirt and suck up to the women on forums, too. It's as if they'd never seen one in person.

Ditto.

[Noir]

Well, I have seen some instances where the females set themselves up for it, but more times than not, it's been the dudes starting it.

I also find it think it's kind of sad how much the other men flirt and suck up to the women on forums, too. It's as if they'd never seen one in person.
Like the FHM? or the Female respect thread?

[Avalanche]

How is this now a male versus female thread?

On the actual topic of the thread, I'm a gay guy, but I have no objection to seeing two girls kiss. Nor does it repulse me, or generally make me feel uncomfortable. The same goes for straight couples kissing. I just don't get why something so ordinary could get so many guys so freaked out. Very odd.

[kainedamo]

Gay guys kissing doesn't make me uncomfortable. I've been to gay bars and everything.

I've always disliked guys who dislike homosexuality based purely on the fact that guys kissing freaks them out.

[Drakon]

I moved the other topic to a new thread, because I think the conversation has merit.

[Calvin]

Drak, you're the man. I've long argued that that's the correct action to be taken when an argumentative tangent occurs in a thread.

[Drakon]

It depends on what the topic is, and how it's flowing as to how I handle it. If it's just flaming, then it's gone. But thanks. ^_^

[Spider-Bite]

White House threatens to veto hate crimes bill

House votes to extend federal protection to gender, sexual orientation


WASHINGTON - Just hours after the White House issued a veto threat Thursday, the House voted to add gender and sexual orientation to the categories covered by federal hate crimes law.
The House legislation, passed 237-180, also makes it easier for federal law enforcement to take part in or assist local prosecutions involving bias-motivated attacks. Similar legislation is also moving through the Senate, setting the stage for another veto showdown with President Bush.
“This is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the only openly gay man in the House, presided over the chamber as the final vote was taken.
The vote came after fierce lobbying from civil rights groups, who have been pushing for years for added protections against hate crimes, and social conservatives, who say the bill threatens the right to express moral opposition to homosexuality and singles out groups of citizens for special protection.
The White House, in a statement warning of a veto, said state and local criminal laws already cover the new crimes defined under the bill, and there was “no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement.”

Attempts to expand protection
It also noted that the bill leaves other classes, such as the elderly, the military and police officers, without similar special status.
“Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim.”
Republicans, in a parliamentary move that would have effectively killed the bill, tried to add seniors and the military to those qualifying for hate crimes protection. It was defeated on a mainly party-line vote.
Hate crimes under current federal law apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.
The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crimes investigations. It approves $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crimes prosecutions.
Federal investigators could step in if local authorities are unwilling or unable to act. The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay rights group, said this federal intervention could have made a difference in the case of Brandon Teena, the young Nebraska transsexual depicted in the movie “Boys Don’t Cry” who was raped after two friends discovered that he was biologically female and then murdered when local police did not arrest those responsible.

Dobson: Intent is ‘to muzzle people of faith’
But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was “to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.” If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, “you may be guilty of committing a ’thought crime.”’

“It does not impinge on public speech or writing in any way,” countered Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., pointing out that the bill explicitly reaffirms First Amendment and free speech rights.
Conyers said in a statement that state and local authorities will continue to prosecute the overwhelming majority of such cases and the bill requires the attorney general or another high-ranking Justice Department official to approve any federal prosecutions.
The legislation restates already-enacted penalties. Those using guns to commit crimes defined under the bill face prison terms of up to 10 years. Crimes involving kidnapping or sexual assault or resulting in death can bring life terms.
The Judiciary Committee cited FBI figures that there have been more than 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, including 7,163 in 1995. It said that racially motivated bias accounted for 55 percent of those incidents, religious bias for 17 percent, sexual orientation bias for 14 percent and ethnicity bias for 14 percent.

---------------------------------------------------------

President Bush, that is really low.

[KingOfDreams]

Bush is a jackass. This really is a new low. Of course, every day is a new low with that guy and his cronies. The Republicans argument here is pretty weak. The only muzzling that would happen is if one of them decided to beat up a gay person...and that's certainly rightful muzzling. Justice. And this whole notion that justice is equal is kind of a laugh. If that were true than most of the country's prisoners would not be minorities and white collar criminals (Bush's friends) wouldn't keep doing what they're doing.

[Locs]

A step in the right direction.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

To my knowledge, there's not a good many homos in the country...though Dr. Dobson is wrong. A hate crime is committed only if you physically attack the victim of said crime. Name calling's still in the clear.

Thought of the day: What can others do to stop such vetos?

[The Chairman]

I agree that it was wrong to veto the bill but I do believe that the elderly, military and law officials do deserve equal treatment as well.

[kytrigger]

I'm actually against the idea of prosecuting "hate crimes" anyway.

I know that sounds really ****ty, but hear me out.

If a person kills someone else because they are black and hates blacks, then they should be punished...severely, but it isn't up ot the governemnt to also punish them for what they think.
The same thing goes with everyone that hate arabs, gays, women, whatever. I strongly disagree with their belief that they are "less than human" or whatever they are thinking, but I don't agree with punishing them because they think differently then me. To me, that is a very slippery slope for the government to be on, something I could definately see them going overboard with like they have before.

To me, it shouldn't really matter why the person was beaten or killed or whatever, just that it happened.

[hippie_hunter]

You know how I've always said that the Democrats should just stop it with the tactics to make Bush look like an ********* because he already does a good job of doing it without them.

This just proves that Bush doesn't need the Democrats to look like an *********.

[Kritish]

Bush has no real defense for vetoing this bill, no one’s going to arrest preachers for acting like jack asses about homosexuals. I don’t think that there even needs to be such a thing as a hate crime though, it doesn’t matter why you got killed or beaten, just that you did.

[CrAzYMoFo]

I think that there should be laws that protect homosexuals etc. from hate crimes, but I also think it is going to be very difficult to separate what is a hate crime and what is not under the circumstances.

[ScottyBBadd]

I'm actually against the idea of prosecuting "hate crimes" anyway.

I know that sounds really ****ty, but hear me out.

If a person kills someone else because they are black and hates blacks, then they should be punished...severely, but it isn't up ot the governemnt to also punish them for what they think.
The same thing goes with everyone that hate arabs, gays, women, whatever. I strongly disagree with their belief that they are "less than human" or whatever they are thinking, but I don't agree with punishing them because they think differently then me. To me, that is a very slippery slope for the government to be on, something I could definately see them going overboard with like they have before.

To me, it shouldn't really matter why the person was beaten or killed or whatever, just that it happened.

All homicides are pretty much a form of "hate crime".

[Sandman138]

Disagreeing with homosexuality =! Mathew Shepard

[Sandman138]

A little background on Dobson.

"On July 17, 2006, Soulforce, a gay rights group, "accused Focus on the Family founder James Dobson of manipulating research data to say gays and lesbians are not good parents."[4] Judith Stacey, a sociologist at New York University, said Focus on the Family "manipulated" her work "in an attempt to show gays and lesbians do not make good parents."[5] A Focus on the Family official denied the allegation.[6] In December 2006, two more scientists alleged that Dobson misrepresented their research. In a guest column published in Time Magazine titled Two Mommies is One Too Many, Dobson argued that same-sex couples are unsuitable parents, citing as support research by New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, PhD, and Dr. Kyle Pruett of the Yale school of medicine.[8] After the article's publication, Gilligan accused Dobson of "twisting" and "distorting" her research.[9] Pruett also disagreed with Dobson's representation of his work, saying in a letter to Dobson, "You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes.... This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions."[9] It was reported that Pruett's work suggests the opposite of Dobson's assertions.[9] Truth Wins Out called on Time Magazine to renounce Dobson's article. Gilligan asked Focus on the Family to never quote from her work again, and to issue an apology.[10] Pruett requested that Focus on the Family seek his permission before using his work in the future.[11] Dobson has defended his usage of the research.[12]"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701530.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Scientist_blasts_Focus_on_Family_chief_1215.html

I think, at the very least, we can all agree that Dobson is ugly.

[sinewave]

A step in the right direction.

To my knowledge, there's not a good many homos in the country...though Dr. Dobson is wrong. A hate crime is committed only if you physically attack the victim of said crime. Name calling's still in the clear.

Thought of the day: What can others do to stop such vetos?

:huh:

[Kritish]

A little background on Dobson.

"On July 17, 2006, Soulforce, a gay rights group, "accused Focus on the Family founder James Dobson of manipulating research data to say gays and lesbians are not good parents."[4] Judith Stacey, a sociologist at New York University, said Focus on the Family "manipulated" her work "in an attempt to show gays and lesbians do not make good parents."[5] A Focus on the Family official denied the allegation.[6] In December 2006, two more scientists alleged that Dobson misrepresented their research. In a guest column published in Time Magazine titled Two Mommies is One Too Many, Dobson argued that same-sex couples are unsuitable parents, citing as support research by New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, PhD, and Dr. Kyle Pruett of the Yale school of medicine.[8] After the article's publication, Gilligan accused Dobson of "twisting" and "distorting" her research.[9] Pruett also disagreed with Dobson's representation of his work, saying in a letter to Dobson, "You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes.... This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions."[9] It was reported that Pruett's work suggests the opposite of Dobson's assertions.[9] Truth Wins Out called on Time Magazine to renounce Dobson's article. Gilligan asked Focus on the Family to never quote from her work again, and to issue an apology.[10] Pruett requested that Focus on the Family seek his permission before using his work in the future.[11] Dobson has defended his usage of the research.[12]"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701530.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Scientist_blasts_Focus_on_Family_chief_1215.html

I think, at the very least, we can all agree that Dobson is ugly.

I’m not surprised in the least, Dobson’s a first class douche. I guess he forgot about the commandment about not lying.

[cryptic name]

the idea of "hate crime" is retarded anyway. if you kill someone in cold blood it doesn't matter if you did it because they're black, guy, straight, kree, skrull, or anything, the point is you killed someone in cold blood.
and prosecuting anyone for calling someone a name is the height of ridiculousness

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

:huh:

Why the confusion? My post should be pretty clear in voicing my anti-homosexual opinion. If they choose the lifestyle, then they should be aware of the consequences-bashing/jokes/merriment at other's expense.

[Locs]

^cryptic, they are a few people who do kill/attack people because they're black, white, gay etc.

@sinewave...My response was vague, my bad. What I should've wrote is that it is a step in the right direction for congress. I couldn't care less about what Bush plans to do. His time is almost up.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

How can you tell if the homicide was a hate crime though? All you can really do is make generalizations based on the evidence.

[sinewave]

Why the confusion? My post should be pretty clear in voicing my anti-homosexual opinion. If they choose the lifestyle, then they should be aware of the consequences-bashing/jokes/merriment at other's expense.

that's a very disturbing opinion.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

I'm a disturbing person, by your standards. You people should know that by now.

But how is my opinion disturbing?

[sinewave]

I'm a disturbing person, by your standards. You people should know that by now.

But how is my opinion disturbing?

this is the first i've seen of you on these boards, so i don't know what you're referring to when you say "you people".

your opinion's disturbing because you're advocating attacks on innocent people all because you disapprove of their sexual preference. i'm assuming your attitude towards them stems from your religious belief and if that's the case, you're not living up to it's teachings. some might label you a religious zealot or a bigot.

[Mr. Credible]

Why the confusion? My post should be pretty clear in voicing my anti-homosexual opinion. If they choose the lifestyle, then they should be aware of the consequences-bashing/jokes/merriment at other's expense.

it's one thing to make fun of a gay person, and while it's not cool, it's constitutionally protected by the 1st amendment, so it's okay, i guess... but beating somebody, or worse, because they love the cock (and let's be honest lesbians aren't normally the focus of sexual-orientation-based hate crimes) is not cool. i mean, beating or killing somebody based on anything is not cool, and this is where the republicans have a point.

they say we should not seperate genders/races/religions/etc from the law, but they seperate people based on finances through the law all the time.

are you famous? can you hire a big fancy lawyer? BOOM! you're off with maybe a slap on the wrist.

the law is not 'even' at all. and bush's obvious hate for all things non-christian (except for killing people for no good reason) is not going to change that.

[bulok]

Last time I checked Freedom of Speech is still a protected constitutional right. What this bill is trying to do is limit not only speech but thought. People who are opposed to homosexuality or whatever is basically being told either deal with it or shut up.

What next? Religious affiliation hate crime bill? The very idea of a hate crime is ridiculous anyways.

In a murder trial, it's the charges and evidence, not the motivation that convicts a criminal and decides their sentences. That should be the bottom line.

[Elijya]

the idea of "hate crime" is retarded anyway. if you kill someone in cold blood it doesn't matter if you did it because they're black, guy, straight, kree, skrull, or anything, the point is you killed someone in cold blood.
and prosecuting anyone for calling someone a name is the height of ridiculousness

Whether or not their should be hate crime laws is a whole other issue. But if they are going to exist, hate crimes against people for their sexual orientation should be included.

[Elijya]

Why the confusion? My post should be pretty clear in voicing my anti-homosexual opinion. If they choose the lifestyle, then they should be aware of the consequences-bashing/jokes/merriment at other's expense.

There's a pretty well established school of though - backed by those on both sides of the issue - that being gay is not a choice, it is who you are.

[Mr. Credible]

Last time I checked Freedom of Speech is still a protected constitutional right. What this bill is trying to do is limit not only speech but thought. People who are opposed to homosexuality or whatever is basically being told either deal with it or shut up.

What next? Religious affiliation hate crime bill? The very idea of a hate crime is ridiculous anyways.

In a murder trial, it's the charges and evidence, not the motivation that convicts a criminal and decides their sentences. That should be the bottom line.

actually, motivation very often factors into a trial.

[Elijya]

In a murder trial, it's the charges and evidence, not the motivation that convicts a criminal and decides their sentences. That should be the bottom line.
Actually, motive plays a HUGE part in any murder trial, and will greatly affect sentencing.

The person who murders a cheating lover will get a far different sentence than someone who murders the person that raped their daughter, and they'll get a different sentence from someone who murdered a police officer while escaping from a robbery.

[Armand Z Trip]

People who hate homosexuals should shut up and deal with it. If I took the podium in church and said how much I hate clam chowder or magazine subscription cards, no one is getting shot. Since the last time you checked there has been something called the Patriot Act, there are new terms like enemy combatant, suspension of habeas corpus and illegal wire tapping. So sorry freedom of speech NOT a protected consitutional right. If there can be no law impeding someone on a terrorist watch list from buying a gun, there should be an expansion of hate crime laws.

[bulok]

You don't have to have a motive to prosecute someone for murder. It helps to investigate a murder if you can find a motive but all you have to prove in a trial is that a person commited the crime.

[Armand Z Trip]

Why the confusion? My post should be pretty clear in voicing my anti-homosexual opinion. If they choose the lifestyle, then they should be aware of the consequences-bashing/jokes/merriment at other's expense.

America is about tired huddled masses yearning to be free,that all men are created equal. You should be free to go your own way without some inbred hick screaming God Bless America as he shoots you with a Russian made AK. Consequences are for game shows and totalitarian dictatorships. Not the land of the free.

[Elijya]

You don't have to have a motive to prosecute someone for murder. It helps to investigate a murder if you can find a motive but all you have to prove in a trial is that a person commited the crime.

"Proving" a murder is not always an easy thing, especially when you're dealing with circumstantial evidence. You don't always have a video tape of the event. If a prosecutor cannot supply a (believable) motive while trying to prove someone's guilty without concrete proof, the chances of that person being found innocent are increased. The prosecutor needs to provide the Jury with "why", not just "how". A defending lawyer will also ask the jury "Why would my client do this?" if the prosecutor doesn't have an answer, to cast doubt on his client's guilt.

Cases where a prosecutor has concrete proof aren't likely to go to jury trial anyway as the defendent will likely plead guilty in exchange for a (slightly) lesser sentence since it saves the aggrivation, cost, and risk of a jury trial.

[MaskedManJRK]

Two things:

1. How this Focus on the Family guy can say that this is a "thought crime" is beyond me. Last time I checked, hate crimes constituted ASSAULT and MURDER. So, basically this is just impeding on your right to "bash a ******'s head open," which you DON'T F**KING HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

2. The reasoning to veto the bill is really shaky, at best. Because Police Officers are not counted? Uh...don't police have the right already to arrest those who assult/murder other police officers? If so, then isn't that enough?

[Sandman138]

Well, they can either get rid of all hate crime laws, or they can make sure that the hate crime laws are applied equally. Ideally, a trial by jury should be able to take such disgusting motivations into account without the beuorocracy and "benign" moral authoritarianism of such laws. Indeed, Bush's vetoing of the bill proves the exact problem of such hate crime laws, as Bush is basically using laws designed to protect minority rights to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness, to selectively decrease a certain minority's same rights.

[Sandman138]

Why the confusion? My post should be pretty clear in voicing my anti-homosexual opinion. If they choose the lifestyle, then they should be aware of the consequences-bashing/jokes/merriment at other's expense.

And should they expect these things as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_nonheterosexuals

I'm not a proponent of hate crime legislation, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

And should they expect these things as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_nonheterosexuals

I'm not a proponent of hate crime legislation, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

I see no reason for violence. All I'm saying is that upon embracing the lifestyle, they should brace for verbal insults. Tis quite common in my area. For example: "Oh my god!!! Its Beau's box of gayness!"-referring to a homosexual who drives a white box-looking car. Or go to San Francisco. :woot:

[Dan33977]

Why the confusion? My post should be pretty clear in voicing my anti-homosexual opinion. If they choose the lifestyle, then they should be aware of the consequences-bashing/jokes/merriment at other's expense...All I'm saying is that upon embracing the lifestyle, they should brace for verbal insults.

Wow!

What appalls me most about this statement is what it implies about your other views regarding other social issues. According to your logic, it was also OK for Hitler and the Nazis to do what they did to Jews in Germany during the 1930's and World War II; it was their choice to be Jewish, so they should have been prepared for the consequences of their decision (i.e. being slaughtered).

If you don't believe that the treatment of Jews under Nazi Germany was justified, then you cannot believe that the current treatment of homosexuals in the United States is justified unless you want to admit to having a double standard, in which case, you're a hypocrite and have no credibility. Homosexuals were also tortured by the Nazis in Germany during the 1930's and World War II; however, they received even worse treatment than Jewish people did and were even abandoned in their cells when U.S. soldiers arrived to free the Jewish prisoners. If you don't believe me about the treatment of homosexuals during and after the Holocaust, click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexual_people_in_Nazi_Germany_and_t he_Holocaust), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175) (Paragraph 175); there's also a documentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175_%28movie%29) about Paragraph 175.

Your statement also implies that you still support racism. African Americans have the choice to integrate themselves into white culture; if they don't, they should be prepared for the negative consequences and treatment that they'll receive.

And, according to your "logic," sexism is also morally OK. Women have the choice to become a man (with a sex change); if they don't, they should be prepared for the negative consequences and treatment that they'll receive.

I mean, do you still not see how flawed your "logic" is?

I compare your pathetic, socially unacceptable, immoral, anti-American views to social issues you probably don't support (i.e. racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism) to illustrate the inconsistencies in your beliefs and logic; you cannot believe that homosexuals should be prepared for the negative treatment that they'll receive and also believe that racism and sexism are immoral, which I hope you do believe.

Your views and attitudes are totally opposed to the idea of a free society, which is why I've adopted the method of calling social conservatives anti-American.