Discussion: Gay Rights

[jaguarr]

Masculinity and homosexuality are two different things.

Very true. I know some gay guys who are probably among the most masculine kind of guys on the planet, actually.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

The Irony is that Celldog argues the same lie of reasoning that the people who were for segregation argued.
and they also based themselves on the bible.
but really it was just their parent's prejudice.

[ShadowBoxing]

Very true. I know some gay guys who are probably among the most masculine kind of guys on the planet, actually.

jag
In my experience many, many Bodybuilders, Bouncers and powerlifters are gay. At least here in the more metropolitan areas of my state.

[jaguarr]

It wasn't debunked. He just gave his opinion like I'm giving mine. He cannot speak for thousands of his brothers world-wide. Period.
And you can't worry about how democratic it would be. They still deserve their chance to speak out on this issue. Surely everybody would be okay with it....right? :whatever:

You stated that gays in the military would unequivocally cause unrest within the troops and the demise of our military. Jack Rabbit offered up an informed opinion as someone who is IN the armed forces that directly went against the grain of your hypothesis, thereby rendering it incorrect. You still haven't explained to me why, since there have been gays in the military since it began, it hasn't crumbled to pieces already.

jag

[ShadowBoxing]

The Irony is that Celldog argues the same lie of reasoning that the people who were against segregation argued.
and they also based themselves on the bible.
but really it was just their parent's prejudice.
Both the opponents and proponents of segregation based their beliefs in the Bible.

[Memphis Slim]

I'm not saying it wouldn't case friction...but didn't blacks or hispanics in the military do the same thing? We've come a long way from segregated companies -- I don't see the problem here.

If they want to fight, if they can fight, and they will fight -- let them fight.


Sexuality runs deeper than race, dude. Race is who you are. Sex is also what you do. There is a prescribed activity involved. You don't have to "do" anything to be black or Hispanic". you just are. Being gay means that I must have sex with the same sex to express that.

[Memphis Slim]

In my experience many, many Bodybuilders, Bouncers and powerlifters are gay. At least here in the more metropolitan areas of my state.


And then they go lay with men like "women" do. Tell where that is masculine?

[ShadowBoxing]

Actually you don't have to express your sexuality correctly or at all to be gay or straight.

[jaguarr]

And then they go lay with men like "women" do. Tell where that is masculine?

So, to you, sexual orientation is the only real indicator of masculinity, then?

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

Both the opponents and proponents of segregation based their beliefs in the Bible.

wow really?
thanks jormugand.

[ShadowBoxing]

And then they go lay with men like "women" do. Tell where that is masculine?
Women expiriment sometimes, I know two or three of my girlfriends that have engaged in lesbian sex (well two I know, one implied she did). Are they now "masculine" because they slept with another woman.

[Mr Sparkle]

And then they go lay with men like "women" do. Tell where that is masculine?

women don't usually penetrate their partners.:huh:
at least not the Women I've been with.

[ShadowBoxing]

wow really?
thanks jormugand.
Also I think you meant "argued against integration" in that post, not segregation.

[PemLam]

It wasn't debunked. He just gave his opinion like I'm giving mine. He cannot speak for thousands of his brothers world-wide. Period.
And you can't worry about how democratic it would be. They still deserve their chance to speak out on this issue. Surely everybody would be okay with it....right? :whatever:

Actually no they don't, when they join, whether as a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or (god help us all) a Marine, they forfeit that right. If you don't agree with the policies or can't live with them, don't join and/or don't reenlist.

That being said, after spending most of my adult life in the service, I can definitively say that the "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy is flawed at best and terribly antiquated. Sexual orientation has NO bearing on your ability to fight and any military man or woman who is so naive or simple-minded to think so is more of a liability than an asset.

Fune

[Mr Sparkle]

Also I think you meant "argued against integration" in that post, not segregation.

I probably did.
or maybe I mean " argued FOR segregation" :o seems like the logical choice.

[Memphis Slim]

You stated that gays in the military would unequivocally cause unrest within the troops and the demise of our military. Jack Rabbit offered up an informed opinion as someone who is IN the armed forces that directly went against the grain of your hypothesis, thereby rendering it incorrect. You still haven't explained to me why, since there have been gays in the military since it began, it hasn't crumbled to pieces already.

jag


Because they hvae kept it to themselves...that's why. Is that so hard to understand? Ignorance is bliss in some cases. To keep harmony in the unit.

Jack Rabbit offered up an opinion based on more information than mine. But still his is very limited since he cannot speak for the armed forced as a whole. Thus comparing his to mine gets us no where. How 'bout they vote??? Then we can all see if Jack is right or wrong.

[jaguarr]

Because they hvae kept it to themselves...that's why. Is that so hard to understand? Ignorance is bliss in some cases. To keep harmony in the unit.

Seriously, how has that made a difference? They may have kept it OFFICIALLY to themselves, but if you think that the people they are in the service with don't quite often know, then you're fooling yourself. Just because it's not on the record and out in the open doesn't necessarily mean it's a big secret.

jag

[Memphis Slim]

Actually you don't have to express your sexuality correctly or at all to be gay or straight.



Sure you do. You are going to caress, kiss, snuggle or straight have sex with someone of the same sex if you are gay.

[PemLam]

Sure you do. You are going to caress, kiss, snuggle or straight have sex with someone of the same sex if you are gay.

Debatable...half the males on this board say they're straight yet haven't so much as rubbed up against a woman. :o

Most of the kids on this board that profess to be gay are probably in the same boat.

[Memphis Slim]

Actually no they don't, when they join, whether as a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or (god help us all) a Marine, they forfeit that right. If you don't agree with the policies or can't live with them, don't join and/or don't reenlist.

That being said, after spending most of my adult life in the service, I can definitively say that the "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy is flawed at best and terribly antiquated. Sexual orientation has NO bearing on your ability to fight and any military man or woman who is so naive or simple-minded to think so is more of a liability than an asset.

Fune


Again...your opinion.

It has no bearing on a person's ability to fight. Not once did anyone see me make such a comment. I already said that that gays have always been among the troops.

THE KEY IS THAT THE OTHERS DID NOT KNOW! Cohesion is the issue here. Comfort level among other men. Some men have very strong convictions against this....women too. They should have a say in this.

A vote is fair.

And could this effect recruitment? As you say, if they can't deal with the policies, will some not sign up at all?

[The Original Bamfer]

Sure you do. You are going to caress, kiss, snuggle or straight have sex with someone of the same sex if you are gay.

I don't see where there's an Insert Quarter to Make Sense slot on you. :huh:

[ShadowBoxing]

Sure you do. You are going to caress, kiss, snuggle or straight have sex with someone of the same sex if you are gay.Plenty of gay men, even ones I know, live closeted for years knowing they are gay. Many have sex with women, avoid sexuality with men, even start entire families...some even live entire lifetimes under that.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/uploads/larry_craig_mug_large.jpg

[PemLam]

Again...your opinion.

It has no bearing on a person's ability to fight. Not once did anyone see me make such a comment. I already said that that gays have always been among the troops.

THE KEY IS THAT THE OTHERS DID NOT KNOW! Cohesion is the issue here. Comfort level among other men. Some men have very strong convictions against this....women too. They should have a say in this.

A vote is fair.

And could this effect recruitment? As you say, if they can't deal with the policies, will some not sign up at all?

Certainly it would effect recruitment as some (possibly many) wouldn't enlist/reenlist; however the overall effect would be a military with people more accepting of change and willing to be more open minded about things.

Oh...any look at the waiting list to join the services (delayed entry program) would show that a drop off like the one you're suggesting would be survivable.

[Memphis Slim]

Seriously, how has that made a difference? They may have kept it OFFICIALLY to themselves, but if you think that the people they are in the service with don't quite often know, then you're fooling yourself. Just because it's not on the record and out in the open doesn't necessarily mean it's a big secret.

jag


There may not be a big secret. I don't there ever has been. But there were certainly no outward expressions of it either. Which can cause a lot of problems.

[ShadowBoxing]

There may not be a big secret. I don't there ever has been. But there were certainly no outward expressions of it either. Which can cause a lot of problems.
Contrary to popular belief, gays don't go around humping straight men, especially not when they are getting shot at.

[jaguarr]

There may not be a big secret. I don't there ever has been. But there were certainly no outward expressions of it either. Which can cause a lot of problems.

And you know this for certainty, how, exactly? And, at any rate, being openly gay is very different from humping your bunk mate after lights out. Just because that's a part of who someone is, doesn't mean they can't conduct themselves just as professionally as anyone who is straight. They're on the job and if they treat it as such then I see absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. It's why we don't allow soldiers of opposite sex to be getting it on during "company time", either.

jag

[ShadowBoxing]

Honestly, Memphis Slim, you must have a problem with women in the military as well. Because male on female rape is a much larger problem socially than gays raping straight men.

[Memphis Slim]

Honestly, Memphis Slim, you must have a problem with women in the military as well. Because male on female rape is a much larger problem socially than gays raping straight men.


To a degree I do. But that another thread.........

[ShadowBoxing]

Okay, well maybe we should start with that discussion and then move our way up to social dilemnas of the 1980s. You obviously have a lot of catching up to do.

[Memphis Slim]

Okay, well maybe we should start with that discussion and then move our way up to social dilemnas of the 1980s. You obviously have a lot of catching up to do.



Or maybe you just have a lot of "blinders to remove".

[ShadowBoxing]

[/b]
Or maybe you just have a lot of "blinders to remove".
Nope. You're the only one spouting outdated, and disproven ideas around here....you and Movies2k4

[PemLam]

[/b]



Or maybe you just have a lot of "blinders to remove".

Are you ****ing kidding me...you say he's got blinders to remove yet you're the one questioning the sanctity of the military from gays and now women? What's next...are minorities poisoning it as well?

[ShadowBoxing]

Are you ****ing kidding me...you say he's got blinders to remove yet you're the one questioning the sanctity of the military from gays and now women? What's next...are minorities poisoning it as well?
I think he's gonna go after the green blooded Irish next.

[PemLam]

I think he's gonna go after the green blooded Irish next.

Frickin' Irish.:cmad:

[Memphis Slim]

Here's an old article on the women issue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article434024.ece

YOUNG female recruits to the Armed Forces are not tough enough to be treated on a par with their male colleagues, a report claimed yesterday.
Too many young women were being injured in training, the independent Adult Learning Inspectorate said, and called for a rethink of the “gender-free” policy. The previous “gender-fair” policy, which took account of the “weaker sex”, was reckoned to be contrary to equal opportunities legislation.
In a report that criticised much of the culture behind Armed Forces’ training, the inspectorate, which carried out checks on all the training establishments, said that the military’s interpretation was to treat everyone the same. In the case of female recruits, the gender-free approach had led to record levels of injuries.
It recommended reverting to gender-fair training. The injuries had also coincided with the fact that recruits often joined the Armed Forces “unfit, overweight or poorly nourished”.
In women, fractures of the tibia (shin bone) had risen over a five-year period from 12.6 per 10,000 personnel to 231.2. Stress fractures of the feet also increased significantly among female recruits.

During the gender-fair period of training, which ended in 1998, female trainees suffered 467 injuries per 10,000, compared with 118 among their male colleagues. After gender-free training was introduced, men’s injuries rose to 147, but women’s injuries went up to 1,113 per 10,000.

After the publication of the inspectorate’s report, which was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence to examine training across the Services, Lieutenant-General Anthony Palmer, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (personnel), said that the issue of gender-free training was being reviewed.
The report said that the problem of injuries in the Services had been “exacerbated by change from a gender-fair policy, in which women were set training goals appropriate to their physique, to a gender-free approach, prompted erroneously by a conviction that equality of opportunity demands it”.
When gender-free training was introduced in 1998, the Government declared that it was another step in efforts to provide equality of opportunity for all. The old system, which required men to run 1.5 miles in 13min 15sec but allowed women 15min 15sec, was perceived to be no longer legally defensible on the grounds of discrimination.
General Palmer said that it was the Services’ responsibility to ensure proper duty of care for all trainees, including “protecting them from injury”.
Military sources said that a reversal to the gender-fair approach was unlikely to affect the promotion prospects for female officers, because they required “more brain than brawn”. For non-commissioned officers, there might be fewer openings for jobs that needed physical strength. Seventy per cent of jobs in the Army are open currently to women.
Last week the Commons Defence Committee issued a critical report into the duty of care after four young recruits died at the Deepcut barracks.
__________________________________________________ _______


PC run amok!! "Gender-Fair"??? Have you ever heard of something so insane?? We are training these people to go to WAR! There is nothing FAIR about that!

Men and women are different. Period.

This is a UK news source. But the same is going on here.

[ShadowBoxing]

Frickin' Irish.:cmad:
We all know how dangerous they are...
2J_q0KTN8_g

[jaguarr]

Here's an old article on the women issue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article434024.ece

YOUNG female recruits to the Armed Forces are not tough enough to be treated on a par with their male colleagues, a report claimed yesterday.
Too many young women were being injured in training, the independent Adult Learning Inspectorate said, and called for a rethink of the “gender-free” policy. The previous “gender-fair” policy, which took account of the “weaker sex”, was reckoned to be contrary to equal opportunities legislation.
In a report that criticised much of the culture behind Armed Forces’ training, the inspectorate, which carried out checks on all the training establishments, said that the military’s interpretation was to treat everyone the same. In the case of female recruits, the gender-free approach had led to record levels of injuries.
It recommended reverting to gender-fair training. The injuries had also coincided with the fact that recruits often joined the Armed Forces “unfit, overweight or poorly nourished”.
In women, fractures of the tibia (shin bone) had risen over a five-year period from 12.6 per 10,000 personnel to 231.2. Stress fractures of the feet also increased significantly among female recruits.

During the gender-fair period of training, which ended in 1998, female trainees suffered 467 injuries per 10,000, compared with 118 among their male colleagues. After gender-free training was introduced, men’s injuries rose to 147, but women’s injuries went up to 1,113 per 10,000.

After the publication of the inspectorate’s report, which was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence to examine training across the Services, Lieutenant-General Anthony Palmer, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (personnel), said that the issue of gender-free training was being reviewed.
The report said that the problem of injuries in the Services had been “exacerbated by change from a gender-fair policy, in which women were set training goals appropriate to their physique, to a gender-free approach, prompted erroneously by a conviction that equality of opportunity demands it”.
When gender-free training was introduced in 1998, the Government declared that it was another step in efforts to provide equality of opportunity for all. The old system, which required men to run 1.5 miles in 13min 15sec but allowed women 15min 15sec, was perceived to be no longer legally defensible on the grounds of discrimination.
General Palmer said that it was the Services’ responsibility to ensure proper duty of care for all trainees, including “protecting them from injury”.
Military sources said that a reversal to the gender-fair approach was unlikely to affect the promotion prospects for female officers, because they required “more brain than brawn”. For non-commissioned officers, there might be fewer openings for jobs that needed physical strength. Seventy per cent of jobs in the Army are open currently to women.
Last week the Commons Defence Committee issued a critical report into the duty of care after four young recruits died at the Deepcut barracks.
__________________________________________________ _______


PC run amok!! "Gender-Fair"??? Have you ever heard of something so insane?? We are training these people to go to WAR! There is nothing FAIR about that!

Men and women are different. Period.

This is a UK news source. But the same is going on here.

Wow. Way to post a British article from nearly three years ago that uses studies from the late 90's to make it's obviously biased point. :up:

jag

[PemLam]

Here's an old article on the women issue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article434024.ece

YOUNG female recruits to the Armed Forces are not tough enough to be treated on a par with their male colleagues, a report claimed yesterday.
Too many young women were being injured in training, the independent Adult Learning Inspectorate said, and called for a rethink of the “gender-free” policy. The previous “gender-fair” policy, which took account of the “weaker sex”, was reckoned to be contrary to equal opportunities legislation.
In a report that criticised much of the culture behind Armed Forces’ training, the inspectorate, which carried out checks on all the training establishments, said that the military’s interpretation was to treat everyone the same. In the case of female recruits, the gender-free approach had led to record levels of injuries.
It recommended reverting to gender-fair training. The injuries had also coincided with the fact that recruits often joined the Armed Forces “unfit, overweight or poorly nourished”.
In women, fractures of the tibia (shin bone) had risen over a five-year period from 12.6 per 10,000 personnel to 231.2. Stress fractures of the feet also increased significantly among female recruits.

During the gender-fair period of training, which ended in 1998, female trainees suffered 467 injuries per 10,000, compared with 118 among their male colleagues. After gender-free training was introduced, men’s injuries rose to 147, but women’s injuries went up to 1,113 per 10,000.

After the publication of the inspectorate’s report, which was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence to examine training across the Services, Lieutenant-General Anthony Palmer, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (personnel), said that the issue of gender-free training was being reviewed.
The report said that the problem of injuries in the Services had been “exacerbated by change from a gender-fair policy, in which women were set training goals appropriate to their physique, to a gender-free approach, prompted erroneously by a conviction that equality of opportunity demands it”.
When gender-free training was introduced in 1998, the Government declared that it was another step in efforts to provide equality of opportunity for all. The old system, which required men to run 1.5 miles in 13min 15sec but allowed women 15min 15sec, was perceived to be no longer legally defensible on the grounds of discrimination.
General Palmer said that it was the Services’ responsibility to ensure proper duty of care for all trainees, including “protecting them from injury”.
Military sources said that a reversal to the gender-fair approach was unlikely to affect the promotion prospects for female officers, because they required “more brain than brawn”. For non-commissioned officers, there might be fewer openings for jobs that needed physical strength. Seventy per cent of jobs in the Army are open currently to women.
Last week the Commons Defence Committee issued a critical report into the duty of care after four young recruits died at the Deepcut barracks.
__________________________________________________ _______


PC run amok!! "Gender-Fair"??? Have you ever heard of something so insane?? We are training these people to go to WAR! There is nothing FAIR about that!

Men and women are different. Period.

This is a UK news source. But the same is going on here.

Female combat pilots: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009983
Female Security Police outside the wire in Iraq: http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123014712

WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

[Memphis Slim]

Here's another problem....



The trouble with sex and soldier girls

Diana Henderson, who had an affair with a fellow soldier, tells Glenda Cooper the army has to stop ruining careers for no reason


In the end it only took a bunch of flowers and a letter saying “I think you’re terrific” to propel the young Diana Henderson into a secret affair. She had been working with her lover for some time and there was mutual attraction but this is what sparked it off. “Relationships aren’t like a book, that you open the cover and — bang — start reading at chapter one,” she recalls. “But it was fantastic, a wonderful thing to do and it didn’t half do me good.”
This wasn’t a simple fling, though: it was one that could have compromised Henderson’s future with the army because she was conducting a relationship “between ranks”. Now she is director of alumni at Queens’ College, Cambridge, and the former commander of a Territorial Army regiment in the Royal Logistic Corps — but then she was just a young officer making her way up.
Henderson will not reveal any details, including whether her former lover was married, but last week she used a public lecture at Bath University to call on the army to overturn the ban on relationships between superiors and subordinates, arguing that “the whole way people conduct their lives has changed dramatically”.
Hers is a controversial view: can the same social rules about love apply when life-or-death situations are regularly being faced? How can personal relationships between superior and subordinate — and the preferential treatment that could follow — not adversely affect the rest of a tightly knit unit?
“The consequences simply cannot be compared to, say, a sales manager having a fling with a junior member of the sales force,” says Antony Beevor, a former officer with the 11th Hussars and author of Inside the British Army. “All that is at stake in that case is office corridor rumours. In the armed services, the effect can be truly destructive.”
Not that the consequences in business are always that simple — last week Harry Stonecipher, the chief executive of Boeing, was sacked for sending unseemly e-mails to a woman in the company with whom he was having an affair.
But Henderson argues that by simply prohibiting or refusing to even discuss the subject, it merely goes underground and the unspoken reality is that the “between ranks” ban is a snobbish relic of class culture.
Today the Ministry of Defence says there has never been a ban on relationships: it prefers the more polite term “discouragement”. Sanctions that are imposed are purely “administrative”.
But the lurid headlines that the army has endured over the past decade suggest that people have not been discouraged — nor have the consequent sanctions been merely administrative. From “Captain Crumpet” Angela Jackson, who had an affair with Colour Sergeant Brian Taylor, to “Lieutenant Lusty” Joanna Kay, who was sent home from her posting in Northern Ireland after performing a sex act on a sergeant, there have been a succession of scandals.
Heidi Cochrane — a pin-up girl on an army recruitment poster — went absent without leave with a married sergeant. And last year the employment tribunal of Angela McConnell produced jaw-dropping allegations: a major with a dozen mistresses and cavalry officers betting on their chances of sleeping with female recruits.
For Henderson such revelations are the natural consequence of the army being unable to face up to 21st-century life and of expecting 17-year-old recruits to sign up to an existence at odds with their experiences of life outside. “No one is born into the army,” she says. “They come from the background of ordinary life. And suddenly they enter the forces and there is this hiccup where everything to do with relationships is suspended.”
When Henderson joined the Women’s Royal Army Corps in 1966 , a woman’s place was doing the accounts and sitting in offices. “It was extremely frustrating. There were glass ceilings, tokenism, discrimination. I reached the point of being a senior major and being told outright, ‘Don’t even bother thinking about going up a rank, Diana: it will not happen’.”
She did in fact reach the rank of lieutenant-colonel. But she says many women left the army because the prevailing attitude was that they could not have relationships with other soldiers. And if they defied that and were discovered it tended to be the women who paid the price. Those that were not formally dismissed were often bullied and harassed. Conversely, the culture of silence meant some women were pressured into sexual relationships and felt unable to complain.
The Ministry of Defence was keen to state last week that there is no technical ban on consenting relationships — if both parties are single — but that the overwhelming emphasis is on the good of the team. If a relationship were to be formed within a unit, a spokesman said, the likelihood is that there would be administrative sanctions — moving one of the lovers on.
For those who have been in the forces, Henderson’s argument about recognising the “real world” is irrelevant. “Whatever outsiders say about extending civilian values and liberty of conduct to members of the armed forces — and that includes the question of positive discrimination as well — every issue must be considered in terms of the dangers and stresses which such a necessarily tightly knit community faces,” says Beevor.
Henderson retorts that all she wants to do is open a debate. Only then will the problems of recruitment and retention facing the forces be addressed. Otherwise she feels young people will simply not be happy to sign up and sign away their sex lives.
She remains unrepentant about the fact that she had a relationship with someone “between ranks” and is still on good terms with her former lover. “We keep in contact,” she says. “My God, it’s a long time ago but I think we are pretty sanguine about it and can look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning and say, ‘Yes, we did the right thing’.”:dry:

wow.

[Mr. Socko]

And you know this for certainty, how, exactly? And, at any rate, being openly gay is very different from humping your bunk mate after lights out. Just because that's a part of who someone is, doesn't mean they can't conduct themselves just as professionally as anyone who is straight. They're on the job and if they treat it as such then I see absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. It's why we don't allow soldiers of opposite sex to be getting it on during "company time", either.

jag


Thank you. :up:

[PemLam]

Hey Jag/Shadow...we are talking about the US military right? Have I been missing something?

[ShadowBoxing]

US military, yeah...oh and I noticed.

[jaguarr]

Hey Jag/Shadow...we are talking about the US military right? Have I been missing something?

Apparently Slim moved to the UK at some point. Have some fish n' chips for us, mate! Cheerio!

jag

[jaguarr]

Thank you. :up:

You are welcome. Now go shave that craptacular pencil-moustache off. :up:

jag

[Zoken]

I honestly cannot see how sexuality should effect a person's right to fight for their nation. I see Memphis argue that "Well it makes the other men uncomfortable" That's their problem! I've admitted to being homophobic many times on these boards. But again, that's my problem if I have a problem with Gay men. You cannot punish a people for the issues and phobias of others. To do so gives room for others to reject people.

Boss: "No, we don't want that Black guy here, he'd make us uncomfortable"

Homeseller: "I'm sorry, we don't want Arabs in our neighborhood, it would make us uncomfortable."

Dean of Admissions: "I'm sorry miss, We don't want you to join our sports team, It would make the boys uncomfortable."

then again, Memphis probably thinks all of that is a good idea.

Oh, and saying that you have to "Express" your sexuality to be that sexuality. By that definition, Children are either Asexual or Insestual. To be a sexuality all a person has to do is physically attracted to one gender or the other... or both.... Damn I hate those lucky bastards and *****es who are attracted to both. Flaunting their multitude of options... I'm off topic... what was I talking about?

[Majik1387]

You know whats uncomfortable? Being in a life and death situation.

And I agree Zoken.

[BlackLantern]

Having served in the US military, I never saw it as a big deal. Serving your country and who you choose to sleep with are not related. As long as you can do your job and do it well, thats all that should count

[Zoken]

Oh, and all that "Evidence" you posted about women in the military. Most of it made me angry about the MEN that are in the military. My Aunt is in the Army. And She'd kick your ass six ways to sunday. This is a woman who makes a 50mile run in the dead of winter every year. She was a drill sergent for overweight officers, getting the fatboys back in shape. So shove your "no women in the miltary" BS right up your ass.

[Memphis Slim]

Female combat pilots: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009983

And when shot down, then what? Chances for survival??

Female Security Police outside the wire in Iraq: http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123014712

WHAT'S YOUR POINT?


What's yours?? that you can always find expections to any rule?? That you can always find a few that break the norm??

The stats show a stark difference between what men can endure physically than women.

The military switched to wearing sneakers in bootcamps because women could tolerate the steel-toed combat boots!!
__________________________________________________ ________

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,138095,00.html


As a group of Army recruits relaxed last month in a grove of tall oaks at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., finishing their catered lunch of roast turkey, scalloped potatoes, green beans and apple pie, Captain Lee McQueen's cell phone rang. The call was from his commander, warning that a practice assault planned for the base's bayonet-combat course might have to be called off: the mercury was creeping into the 90s. McQueen's team of drill sergeants--those fabled hard-noses delegated to whip raw recruits into shape--went into action. They dutifully set up a "wet-bulb globe-temperature-index calculator" and tested the air. Sure enough, it was too hot to attack. http://bibleforums.org/forum/images/smilies/lol.gif

Instead, the 204 men and 57 women of Bravo Company spent the afternoon walking the course, looking more like the slo-mo replay of an N.F.L. game than the cutting edge of the 21st century U.S. Army. "There isn't any training value in walking the course," McQueen groused. Even his recruits were unimpressed. "I expected basic training to be tough, like the movies," says Private Jerry Brunelle. "This is more like summer camp." http://bibleforums.org/forum/images/smilies/lol.gif
It's not just the Army. Complaints are ricocheting in all branches of the service that "basic" has lost its edge--the rigors aren't all that rigorous, there's more silliness than saluting at shape-ups and there's altogether too much flirting between men and women. For most of this century, basic training was a deliberately harsh introduction to military life, a daily dose of screaming drill instructors dishing out vulgarity and physical intimidation to mortify--and motivate--trainees. These days drill sergeants spend more time mentoring than menacing. "We're no longer the charge-the-beach, stogie-in-the-mouth, cussing, hard-drinking, woman-chasing, World War II guy," says Senior Master Sergeant Paula Byrnes, who supervises basic training at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. As the military's technology has grown more sophisticated, she says, the need for traditional warriors, trained in traditional ways, has waned. "The more technologically advanced we get," says Byrnes, "the less overtly brutal we need to be." http://bibleforums.org/forum/images/smilies/banghead.gifhttp://bibleforums.org/forum/images/aux-s/15huh.gif
Maybe. What is certainly true is that the services are under increasing pressure to stem a high dropout rate among trainees. One way to do that is to make basic training easier for everyone to complete. The number of recruits who wash out after fewer than six months--which is how long it takes most members of the service to complete basic plus some advanced training--has climbed by a third over the past decade. "What we're ending up with is a kinder, gentler drill sergeant who is trying to keep attrition down," says Charles Moskos, a leading military sociologist at Northwestern University. "And kinder, gentler drill instructors are not necessarily creating the kind of force you want to go to war." Although the military denies it, many male soldiers and outside experts also believe that mingling men and women in boot camp--as the Air Force has done since 1977, the Navy since 1992 and the Army since 1994--leads to relaxed standards of physical performance and sexual tensions that diminish boot camp's effectiveness.
Misgivings about the sturdiness of basic go all the way up the ranks. As part of a review of the integration of women into the services, Defense Secretary William Cohen has ordered an outside panel to assess training in all four branches of the service. In the defense-authorization bill it passed in June, the House also called for an independent panel to examine basic training. That request is expected to be part of the final bill that goes to President Clinton later this summer.
No one who went through boot camp in the 1950s or '60s would recognize the place today. Soldiers-in-training have swapped combat boots for sneakers (easier on the feet), fatigues for gym shorts and T shirts. Instead of running in formation, they run at their own pace, to challenge the speedy and avoid injuring the slower ones. On military obstacle courses they can run around, instead of over, some walls. In some quarters the very phrase "obstacle course" is frowned upon as too harsh. For the Navy, "confidence course" is now the preferred term.
To discourage physical abuse, which was once tolerated though never sanctioned, drill sergeants are forbidden to so much as touch recalcitrant recruits in an effort to get them to perform. "Stress created by physical or verbal abuse is non-productive and prohibited," says the Army's training manual. "Drill sergeants used to be able to discipline soldiers on the spot when they misbehaved," McQueen says. "But now you can't even touch them to check their ammunition."
The nine weeks of Navy basic training begin on a luxury bus that takes recruits from O'Hare airport to the Navy's lone boot camp, Great Lakes Recruit Training Command, just north of Chicago. Onboard they watch an 18-min. orientation video with a rock-music soundtrack in which recent boot-camp grads tell the new arrivals that "physically, anybody can get through boot camp," and that it's O.K. to cry. Recruits get a "Blue Card," which helps them deal with stress. The card instructs a recruit to hand it over to a Navy trainer if he or she feels blue. "Thinking about running away?" it asks. "Help is less painful!"
On arrival recruits face a "moment of truth" during which they are told to divulge every secret in their past, such as drug use, arrests and even traffic tickets. For years, that debriefing was a bit like a police interrogation, with signs threatening $10,000 fines and jail time for liars. Those signs have been replaced by posters of naval vessels and slides exhorting the kids to embrace "honor, courage, commitment." "When they see all these nice pictures, that gives them a warmer welcome than I got," says Senior Chief Petty Officer Norman Pretlow, a recruit division commander.
The Navy has dropped other basic-training practices that old timers say fostered cohesion and discipline. Since sailors don't usually salute other sailors below the rank of officer, recruits no longer salute their drill instructors, who are petty officers. Since few will ever use firearms in the line of duty, marching with rifles went out last year. The Navy says it's trying to instill standards that the recruits will understand and embrace, not just follow. "If I just say, 'At attention! Fall in!' I may get the behavior I want--80 recruits standing at attention--but what are they thinking about?" asks Master Chief Petty Officer Alan McCue. "But if you tell them that we're going to have this personnel inspection to instill pride in the unit, you will get pumped recruits who want to do it."
The Navy also says that approach gets results with young recruits who crave strict standards they may not be finding at home or in school. "The old method of getting right in your face and screaming and hollering sends them running," says Captain Cory Whitehead, commander of the Great Lakes boot camp. "They're hungry for standards, and if they're given one, they embrace it." Some officers outside of boot camp still think the whole enterprise has gone squishy. "When these kids get to the fleet," one commander says privately, "you can see it isn't working."
Lighter physical training, which many recruits get just three times a week, is another sore point. "They want us to put the Navy into our heart, not our muscles," complains recruit Michael Evans. Captain Whitehead counters that the old system overworked recruits, leading to stress fractures and other medical problems that delayed, or ended, fledgling Navy careers. "We had recruits piling up, waiting for them to get better so we could do it to them again," she says. "Now we rarely break them."
As it happens, basic has become more congenial at the very moment when instructors face more recruits who, as products of an unbridled youth culture, have no instinctive respect for authority. "The resistance to leadership exhibited by this 'generation that was never spanked' undermines discipline and the rank-authority system," concludes a draft report prepared for the Pentagon by the Rand Corp., a California think tank. Older officers also complain that the new generation is more motivated than their predecessors by the financial incentives of the all-volunteer Army. "People used to come here for the 'duty, honor, country' aspect," says Sergeant Shawn Brown, an Army Reserve drill sergeant. "Now they're here for the Army College Fund." Retired Admiral Stan Arthur, who commanded Navy forces in the Persian Gulf War, sums it up this way, "It is almost as if the services are becoming unionized."
Mixing men and women in basic training has also caused some problems. Fresh from the sex scandal at the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, the services are determined to make drill instructors understand that sexual exploitation of female recruits will not be tolerated. At the same time, military brass wants to discourage trainees from becoming distracted by the opposite sex. A recent Army study of mixed-gender training two years ago concluded: "Drill sergeants felt they had to keep the soldiers focused on the training, while the soldiers were focused on one another." http://bibleforums.org/forum/images/smilies/banghead.gif
Congress is looking into the wisdom of resegregating basic training. The Army in particular is sensitive on this point, having suspended mixed-gender training in 1982 after a five-year attempt--too many women were injured and too many men complained that training with women wasn't tough enough--then reinstating it in 1994. While Army officials insist it's going well this time, reports from the field suggest caution. "Some male drill sergeants said standards had to be lowered to accommodate females, especially for physical training," a new Army report says. "They felt they could not go 'full bore'." http://bibleforums.org/forum/images/aux-s/7sad.gifLast week there were rumbles at the top levels that change could be looming. The Army's top trainer, General William Hartzog, said he may lengthen basic training beyond its current eight weeks, primarily to include more human-relations instruction designed to curb sexual harassment. But Army officials say they are also weighing beefed up physical standards for recruits. That draft Rand Corp. study now circulating around the Pentagon says only 42.9% of the troops surveyed believe their unit is ready for a crisis. "That number is unsettling," the study notes, "given that the military's job is to be prepared for what is essentially a sustained crisis." At Fort Leonard Wood, a lot of recruits agree. "If basic training was tougher, we'd end up with better soldiers," says Private Tony Steinhart. "I want somebody with me in my foxhole who can help me fight, and doesn't expect me to do it all." tiiQuigoWriteAd(755769, 1290655, 600, 240, -1);

[Speedball]

Come up with some new policy, like the "Who frickin' cares?" policy.

[Jack Rabbit]

Celldog -- your arguments concerning women in the military are skewed. I know a few Marines that happen to be female that could beat the **** out of a lot of males. But that's besides the point. Females aren't in combat units. They aren't going to be in your squad, they won't be in a foxhole with you, they aren't going to be carrying a pack next to you. So their level of strength or weak tibas don't mean ****. They fill a role, and it's not just desk work and ****. There are female pilots, crew chiefs, crash rescuemen, MPs, and countless other jobs that are traditionally 'a man's work.'

[Memphis Slim]

Celldog -- your arguments concerning women in the military are skewed. I know a few Marines that happen to be female that could beat the **** out of a lot of males. But that's besides the point. Females aren't in combat units. They aren't going to be in your squad, they won't be in a foxhole with you, they aren't going to be carrying a pack next to you. So their level of strength or weak tibas don't mean ****. They fill a role, and it's not just desk work and ****. There are female pilots, crew chiefs, crash rescuemen, MPs, and countless other jobs that are traditionally 'a man's work.'


Again ...I expect exceptions to every rule. But in general, that is not happening. Why do you think they lowered the standards??

Even in civilian occupations.....at street construction sites, whose the one working the jack hammer? But who is the one usually holding the "stop" or "slow" sign? Why is that??

[Addendum]

Right, the military lowered the standards to get females to join. Even though females have been in the military without the lowering of standards. That was the reason for it, instead of the reason that recruitment numbers overall have been down :whatever:

[Badger]

Dear Slimdog,

Stop being an Ass.

Yours Always,

Badger

[Superhobo]

"I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day." ~Matthew 10:15~

In the above verse, Jesus clearly defines the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as "wicked". the account of events regarding that city (found in Genesis) mentions that homosexuality was one of the crimes its citizens were guilty of.

"But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. 5 They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”"~Genesis 19:4-5~

Also, the angels who visited Lot's house took protective action agaisnt those men...

“Stand back!” they shouted. “This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he’s acting like our judge! We’ll treat you far worse than those other men!” And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But the two angels[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019;&version=51;#fen-NLT-468a)] reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men, young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside." ~Genesis 19:9-11~

In verses 6-8, Lot was even willing to go so far as to give his two virgin daughters to these idiots, in order to protect God's angels. But the men wanted the angels more than Lot's daughters, resulting in their blindness. God would have no reason to blind someone for an action He deemed right or proper. So therefore, the only other result can be that homosexuality is wrong.

It seems you're forgetting the other reasons the two cities were deemed 'wicked:'

Pride, wealth, lazyness, and ignoring the needs of the poor

Ezekiel 16:49
This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Adultery, lies, and general immorality

Jeremiah 23:14
I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah. "

You keep putting homosexuality on some sort of pedestal. And, it's really telling, dude. It's not the only reason the cities were deemed wicked.

So, try again.

[PemLam]

Slim, for 18 years I've shared a comraderie with military men and women that you'll never know. They've all attended the same basic training, deployed to the same locations, worked the same shifts and endured the same crap that I have. For you to trivialize what they've done because of your misguided perceptions of the training they have received is both insulting and humorous. I would gladly accept a flaming homosexual or a menstruating female in my foxhole over you any day of the week.

You are a purest example of the worst our country has to offer. You have my pity and nothing more.

[Moviefan2k4]

It seems you're forgetting the other reasons the two cities were deemed "wicked". You keep putting homosexuality on some sort of pedestal. And, it's really telling, dude. It's not the only reason the cities were deemed "wicked".I never said it was the only reason; in fact, I explicitly meantioned that homosexuality was one of the sins (plural) that Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed over. I focused on the gay aspect in response to a direct question from you.

On principle, it's no different from someone saying, "I went to the movies last night", and then telling a second individual, "My wife and I went to the movies last night". Sections of fact are often omitted, due to not being relative for a purpose.

[Superhobo]

I never said it was the only reason; in fact, I explicitly meantioned that homosexuality was one of the sins (plural) that Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed over. I focused on the gay aspect in response to a direct question from you.

On principle, it's no different from someone saying, "I went to the movies last night", and then telling a second individual, "My wife and I went to the movies last night". Sections of fact are often omitted, due to not being relative for a purpose.

So, then, yes. You admit that Jesus saying "Even the wicked cities - " and so on does not preclude that he is explicitly mentioning or condemning homosexuality?

[Moviefan2k4]

Jesus simply identified Sodom and Gomorrah as "wicked"; the Old Testament explains why in many details, homosexuality among them. Therefore, it is more than reasonable to infer that God sees homosexuality as wrong.

[Abaddon]

maybe it was wrong because they were having gay sex and they weren't married.:o

[Superhobo]

Jesus simply identified Sodom and Gomorrah as "wicked"; the Old Testament explains why in many details, homosexuality among them. Therefore, it is more than reasonable to infer that God sees homosexuality as wrong.

Oh, I see where this is going. :whatever:


You need to see "For the Bible Tells Me So."

[Badger]

maybe it was wrong because they were having gay sex and they weren't married.:o

zing

Pre-marital sex is a no-no.

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Finally, an on-topic post.

How does being homosexual break the uniformity of thought in combat? Gays can think Shoot to kill as well as any heterosexual person can.
But there's a LOT more to being a tactical combat unit than just fighting. Going on manuvers, operating in dark, uncertain conditions involve trust issues. Rightly or wrongly, differences in people, especially gender preference differences among young males destabilize trust, therefore destabilizing unit performance. This well-studied fact is why they enacted the whole "don't ask, don't tell policy" which was actually aimed at reducung people from "coming out" and destabilizing morale and performance.

[bullets]

Jesus simply identified Sodom and Gomorrah as "wicked"; the Old Testament explains why in many details, homosexuality among them. Therefore, it is more than reasonable to infer that God sees homosexuality as wrong.


maybe god has since changed his mind and has lightened up to the concept of homosexuality.

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

You're a ****ing idiot if you really believe that.I DID NOT say that it's good or bad. It is a fact, that's all. Personally, I do not think that those considerations SHOULD matter, but the fact is that they DO matter.
Don't call people idiots who just say things you don't agree with, you'll never learn anything past your own nose.

[Mr Sparkle]

Jesus simply identified Sodom and Gomorrah as "wicked"; the Old Testament explains why in many details, homosexuality among them. Therefore, it is more than reasonable to infer that God sees homosexuality as wrong.

don't you ever get tired of speaking for Jesus?
wasn't he all about let he who is without sin and stuff?

[Moviefan2k4]

maybe god has since changed his mind and has lightened up to the concept of homosexuality.God never changes; His people do, and so He knows how to work with change. But as for Himself, his stances on right and wrong have been the same for eternity, and will continue to be so. It's just that mankind has spent the bulk of its existence trying to redefine morality because they don't want to honor or be dependent on God. If His stance on anything sinful were to change, that would make Him no more powerful or sovereign than a fallible mortal. He created humanity, therefore He is above it, because the Creator is always greater than the created.

[Moviefan2k4]

don't you ever get tired of speaking for Jesus?
wasn't he all about let he who is without sin and stuff?Since when is speaking the truth in love "throwing stones"? I've mentioned repeatedly that I don't condemn people; I simply states that truth as defined by God through Christ, and then it's up to the reader to decide for themselves whether to accept or reject it.

[Abaddon]

How come God hasn't put out another book in two millennia?

[Mr Sparkle]

God never changes; His people do, and so He knows how to work with change. But as for Himself, his stances on right and wrong have been the same for eternity, and will continue to be so. It's just that mankind has spent the bulk of its existence trying to redefine morality because they don't want to honor or be dependent on God. If His stance on anything sinful were to change, that would make Him no more powerful or sovereign than a fallible mortal. He created humanity, therefore He is above it, because the Creator is always greater than the created.

don't the different penalties for sin in the old testament and the new, as well as his general stance towards humans after Christ kind of prove you wrong?

[Superhobo]

don't the different penalties for sin in the old testament and the new, as well as his general stance towards humans after Christ kind of prove you wrong?

I enjoy mixed fabrics. So warm.

[Mr Sparkle]

Since when is speaking the truth in love "throwing stones"? I've mentioned repeatedly that I don't condemn people; I simply states that truth as defined by God through Christ, and then it's up to the reader to decide for themselves whether to accept or reject it.

no, you say that Jesus spoke against homosexuality, when called upon to say where you merely say " well I think that since he spoke against this place and this place had homos it mus mean that...." and you see nothing wrong with that.

[Lightning Strykez!]

maybe god has since changed his mind and has lightened up to the concept of homosexuality.

I doubt it. The Bible says clearly that God doesn't change--and nor do His standards. HOWEVER: He understands us better than we do ourselves. Therefore, He is in the best position to fully understand homosexuality and grant patience, understanding and even forgiveness for peeps who seek it.

[Mr Sparkle]

I enjoy mixed fabrics. So warm.

plus, do we still kill people that work on the sabbath?
this one is kind of important, because I know this dude, and I'm just waiting for the chance to kill him.

if god happens to be on my side, all the better.
though I could just say he was a witch.

[Mr Sparkle]

How come God hasn't put out another book in two millennia?

bad publishing rep.:csad:

[cookiva]

How come God hasn't put out another book in two millennia?

:D

Total new sig...

[Moviefan2k4]

How come God hasn't put out another book in two millennia?Because contrary to popular belief, He got it right the first time.

Don't the different penalties for sin in the Old Testament and the New, as well as his general stance towards humans after Christ kind of prove you wrong?Nope, because the OT days were before Christ came to redeem humanity. Rules needed to be enforced harsher, because the eternal price hadn't yet been paid.

[Superhobo]

plus, do we still kill people that work on the sabbath?
this one is kind of important, because I know this dude, and I'm just waiting for the chance to kill him.

if god happens to be on my side, all the better.
though I could just say he was a witch.

It's so weird, reading this with Velvet Underground's "Ocean" in the background.

But, true.

[Badger]

How come God hasn't put out another book in two millennia?

He's been busy.

http://moronland.net/media/pictures/familyguygod9.jpg

[Mr Sparkle]

Nope, because the OT days were before Christ came to redeem humanity. Rules needed to be enforced harsher, because the eternal price hadn't yet been paid.

I wish I could bottle your crazy and sell it to sane people for a temporary high.

[Badger]

Because contrary to popular belief, He got it right the first time.

And, contrary to your belief, he didn't write the first one.

[Abaddon]

Because contrary to popular belief, He got it right the first time.

could've used a better editor.:down

[Moviefan2k4]

Moses transcribed the Book of Genesis a few hundred years before christ was sent, but God was still there. the books of the Bible were written by God through men; He told them what to write, and they did. Paul deviated a bit by including his own opinions sometimes, but for the most part, I think God saw to it that His Word was recorded and constructed according to His Will.

[Mr Sparkle]

Because contrary to popular belief, He got it right the first time.


the old testament?
:huh:
because he kind of doesn't use that.
plus, doesn't anyone find it weird that Christianity's all about " forgiveness" but God never just forgives, he always needs sacrifices, or blood, or burnt offerings.


soooooo pagan.

[cookiva]

Because contrary to popular belief, He got it right the first time.



God "physically" wrote the bible???

[Mr Sparkle]

Moses transcribed the Book of Genesis a few hundred years before christ was sent, but God was still there. the books of the Bible were written by God through men; He told them what to write, and they did. Paul deviated a bit by including his own opinions sometimes, but for the most part, I think God saw to it that His Word was recorded and constructed according to His Will.

again.
you KNOW this happened, because the bible told you so.
and you THINK that god wrote it so it wouldn't lie to you.
so it's the perfect example of circular logic.

[Mr Sparkle]

plus, I think that God would love to have gays in the army.
he'd call it his army of man-love.
I don't really know this, nor is there proof of this.

but I "think" it, therefore it must be so right?

[Abaddon]

Moses transcribed the Book of Genesis a few hundred years before christ was sent, but God was still there. the books of the Bible were written by God through men; He told them what to write, and they did. Paul deviated a bit by including his own opinions sometimes, but for the most part, I think God saw to it that His Word was recorded and constructed according to His Will.

lol, how do you which parts Paul deviated from and which ones were divinely inspired? Did he include footnotes?:huh:

[The Original Bamfer]

Moses transcribed the Book of Genesis a few hundred years before christ was sent, but God was still there. the books of the Bible were written by God through men; He told them what to write, and they did. Paul deviated a bit by including his own opinions sometimes, but for the most part, I think God saw to it that His Word was recorded and constructed according to His Will.

The fact is, because this is "God's word" written through men, we don't know how much of it is actually God's word.

[Moviefan2k4]

Doesn't anyone find it weird that Christianity's all about " forgiveness" but God never just forgives, he always needs sacrifices, or blood, or burnt offerings.God does forgive, but His desire to do so cannot overule His desire for perfect justice. Sin must be permanently punished, and so God sent Jesus as the only one capable of being the pure Lamb slaughtered for our redemption. Because Jesus was 100% innocent in God's eyes, then His death became the final sacrifice, and His resurrection "closed the deal" on humanity being allowed into the Kingdom through faith in christ, rather than trying to "earn it" or be "good enough".

[PemLam]

Yet another thread degenerates from it's original content.

[jaguarr]

God does forgive, but His desire to do so cannot overule His desire for perfect justice. Sin must be permanently punished, and so God sent Jesus as the only one capable of being the pure Lamb slaughtered for our redemption. Because Jesus was 100% innocent in God's eyes, then His death became the final sacrifice, and His resurrection "closed the deal" on humanity being allowed into the Kingdom through faith in christ, rather than trying to "earn it" or be "good enough".

Even JESUS is tired of hearing you talk about him, dude. Seriously, give it a rest.

jag

[Abaddon]

God does forgive, but His desire to do so cannot overule His desire for perfect justice. Sin must be permanently punished, and so God sent Jesus as the only one capable of being the pure Lamb slaughtered for our redemption. Because Jesus was 100% innocent in God's eyes, then His death became the final sacrifice, and His resurrection "closed the deal" on humanity being allowed into the Kingdom through faith in christ, rather than trying to "earn it" or be "good enough".

so, unless I'm misunderstanding, Hell was never part of the deal until after Jesus showed up. Since those that existed before Christ weren't condemned there. So once Jesus was sacrificed God brought Heaven/Paradise to the bargaining table. But if you reject Christ you will now be condemned to Hell. Right?:huh:

[Moviefan2k4]

so, unless I'm misunderstanding, Hell was never part of the deal until after Jesus showed up. Since those that existed before Christ weren't condemned there. So once Jesus was sacrificed God brought Heaven/Paradise to the bargaining table. But if you reject Christ you will now be condemned to Hell. Right?:huh:The last part is correct, in that damnation is the result of rejecting Christ in this life. However, we do not know what happened eternally to everyone in the OT, because its not recorded. My best guess is that since God always checks the hearts of those who serve Him, then those He declared right with Him were redeemed.

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

so, unless I'm misunderstanding, Hell was never part of the deal until after Jesus showed up. Since those that existed before Christ weren't condemned there. So once Jesus was sacrificed God brought Heaven/Paradise to the bargaining table. But if you reject Christ you will now be condemned to Hell. Right?:huh:
Yes, Hell & Satan were created by THE CHURCH much later to keep the simple-minded in line.


It's working.

[Hotwire]

Hmm, I started this thread for people to discuss their thoughts on whether gays should be allowed to serve openly in the militry. How the hell did it become a religion thread? MovieFan, did you start this?

[Moviefan2k4]

No; I simply have been responding directly to questions passed my way. If they happen to focus on my being a Christian, then I respond in kind. nothing wrong with that.

[Badger]

Hmm, I started this thread for people to discuss their thoughts on whether gays should be allowed to serve openly in the militry. How the hell did it become a religion thread? MovieFan, did you start this?

I blame it on Morg. :down

[The Original Bamfer]

Hmm, I started this thread for people to discuss their thoughts on whether gays should be allowed to serve openly in the militry. How the hell did it become a religion thread? MovieFan, did you start this?

Are you really surprised?

[Abaddon]

This is what happens when people try to use Biblical text to prove their arguments

[The Original Bamfer]

This is what happens when people try to use Biblical text to prove their arguments

Yeah. It's pretty damn ineffective. Proving a point takes facts.

[Mr Sparkle]

Hmm, I started this thread for people to discuss their thoughts on whether gays should be allowed to serve openly in the militry. How the hell did it become a religion thread? MovieFan, did you start this?

yes, yes he did.
I mean, if your reasons for everything are "Jesus" you'll get called on it.
but yeah, back on topic.
so far I have seen the stupidest stereotypes as basis for this laws.
because people might think that Gays will be cowards, because they are effeminate.
yeah, well, we should stop letting black people in the Army, because hey, what if they break out into a dance when the enemy attacks?
how about Latinos? what if they take out their noisy maracas while on a stealth mission?
sure, they would escape, screaming " andele, andele!!! arriba, arriba!!" but what of the poor soldiers left behind?
all but the black guy would die horrible deaths ( the black guy's death wouldn't be as horrible as he would be dancing) all because some Mexican couldn't contain his latiness?
oh, Gloria Estefan was right, the Rhythm IS gonna' get 'cha!
:csad:

[Badger]

No; I simply have been responding directly to questions passed my way. If they happen to focus on my being a Christian, then I respond in kind. nothing wrong with that.

What else would we focus on? It's pretty obvious why you feel the way you feel. So you stating, "You'd be afraid of being hit on" as a reason Gays should not be in the military is going to lead everyone down this road.

Don't be coy, you enjoy this.

[Moviefan2k4]

What else would we focus on?The original topic at hand wouldn't be a bad idea, instead of intentionally assaulting anyone who dares to take the Bible as fact, and trust Jesus Christ over themselves. My posts have always had some sort of tie to whatever discussion I've been involved in. Aside from your attacks on me and other believers, can you honestly say the same?

It's pretty obvious why you feel the way you feel.Agreed, although I doubt you know all the real reasons behind my faith. I trust in Christ because I need an eternal foundation that never changes. It'd be very difficult for me to trust anyone, God or man, if they flip-flopped on every moral, ethical, or spiritual stance.

So you stating, "You'd be afraid of being hit on" as a reason gays should not be in the military is going to lead everyone down this road.And which "road" is that? It's true I don't like it when homosexuals approach me in that way, but then I'm certainly not alone in that regard. One of my favorite examples regarding evaluation vs. condemnation comes from the film "Jurassic Park", where John Hammond says, "I don't blame people for their mistakes...but I do ask that they pay for them."

Don't be coy, you enjoy this.The only thing I truly enjoy about any of this is the fact that no matter how my comments enrage the naysayers, they still return with questions, hoping for an answer they want...but when I simply reiterate what God has said for centuries in his Word, they go to find another question, hoping for a different result. I won't change my views simply because I'm asked or expected to. My allegiance is ultimately with the great God Almighty, and if that angers any of you, I aplogize. But I care more about what my adoptive Father thinks, thank you very much.

[Superman]

They need to "Come up with something new" Like say letting openly gay men and women in without questions.

[Zoken]

Moviefan, your first mistake was attempting a theological debate with Fish-Bulb. He'll bend you over and make you his intellectual *****. Trust me, it's not fun.

Second, you're trying to push a legal agenda based on religion in a nation where we have a constitutionally stated seperation of church and state. For the protection of the church from the state and the state from the church. No law should ever be based on religious morals, no matter how sensible they are. If you disagree, if you tell me that you believe laws should be based on religious beliefs I'm going to tell you to get the hell out of the states, and go to Afganistan.

[jaguarr]

Moviefan, your first mistake was attempting a theological debate with Fish-Bulb. He'll bend you over and make you his intellectual *****. Trust me, it's not fun.

Second, you're trying to push a legal agenda based on religion in a nation where we have a constitutionally stated seperation of church and state. For the protection of the church from the state and the state from the church. No law should ever be based on religious morals, no matter how sensible they are. If you disagree, if you tell me that you believe laws should be based on religious beliefs I'm going to tell you to get the hell out of the states, and go to Afganistan.

:up: You get a cookie.

jag

[Hotwire]

Second, you're trying to push a legal agenda based on religion in a nation where we have a constitutionally stated seperation of church and state. For the protection of the church from the state and the state from the church. No law should ever be based on religious morals, no matter how sensible they are. If you disagree, if you tell me that you believe laws should be based on religious beliefs I'm going to tell you to get the hell out of the states, and go to Afganistan.
This is something that we, as a nation, be it Christian or not, cannot do. By allowing Christians to legislate their beliefs, in a country where you have freedom of religion, you must allow other religions to legislate their beliefs.

[jaguarr]

This is something that we, as a nation, be it Christian or not, cannot do. By allowing Christians to legislate their beliefs, in a country where you have freedom of religion, you must allow other religions to legislate their beliefs.

:up: You also get a cookie.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

I demand a cookie!!! :cmad:

[jaguarr]

Pshaw! One does not..."DEMAND"...a cookie! Plebe! :down

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

this is the revolution! the populace will demand cookies and the cookie dispensing elite will hang from the gallows! :cmad:

[lazur]

I'm fine with gays in the military as long as they get their own quarters and restrooms...

[jaguarr]

My fellow Americans. These are dire times. Our national cookie reserves are threatened by terrorists who would seek to take what is ours. We will not falter in our vigilance to stop these terrorists who want to destroy our cookie freedom. We have enacted wire-tapping and surveillance measures, and are detaining several suspects that we believe to be their leaders. We will not rest until each one of these terrorists is behind bars and paying the debt they owe to society. Freedom and liberty demand our strength. We shall give it to them.

jag

[jaguarr]

I'm fine with gays in the military as long as they get their own quarters and restrooms...

No! No! BAD lazur! Bad! No cookie for you! :cmad:

jag

[lazur]

No! No! BAD lazur! Bad! No cookie for you! :cmad:

jag

Bah, seriously, they should get their own facililties not only for peace of mind for those who are not gay, but for their own protection. I wouldn't want a straight woman in the locker room checking out my junk any more than I'd want a gay man in there doing the same thing. Given my nature, I'd be inclined to clock a dude upside the head who's checking me out in close proximity like that, and I'm sure a lot of straight guys would feel the same way.

I was in the military during Clinton's reign, and I encountered more than a few gays. It wasn't really a big deal - it didn't even cross my mind until I was in various situations where privacy became an issue. When you put people (straight or gay) in close proximity with nude people they're attracted to, particularly in living quarters and/or other areas where the chance of becoming aroused is more than likely, it creates too much stress on all people involved. It would be like having a straight man in a women's locker room with a bunch of attractive, nude women around. I realize that'd be LOTS of fun for the man, but it certainly wouldn't be for the women, and who knows it could be detrimental to his safety.

[Mr Sparkle]

It would be like having a straight man in a women's locker room with a bunch of attractive, nude women around. I realize that'd be LOTS of fun for the man, but it certainly wouldn't be for the women, and who knows it could be detrimental to his safety.

aren't you assuming a lot on this post?

[lazur]

aren't you assuming a lot on this post?

Hey, if our society can mature enough to allow co-ed showers like in Starship Troopers, I'm fine with it. Until then, keep their living/showering/restroom facilities separate.

It boils down to being a privacy issue for me. I want my privacy AWAY from other men who might find me attractive, particularly when I'm taking a shower. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[Docker2.0]

yes, yes he did.
I mean, if your reasons for everything are "Jesus" you'll get called on it.
but yeah, back on topic.
so far I have seen the stupidest stereotypes as basis for this laws.
because people might think that Gays will be cowards, because they are effeminate.
yeah, well, we should stop letting black people in the Army, because hey, what if they break out into a dance when the enemy attacks?
how about Latinos? what if they take out their noisy maracas while on a stealth mission?
sure, they would escape, screaming " andele, andele!!! arriba, arriba!!" but what of the poor soldiers left behind?
all but the black guy would die horrible deaths ( the black guy's death wouldn't be as horrible as he would be dancing) all because some Mexican couldn't contain his latiness?
oh, Gloria Estefan was right, the Rhythm IS gonna' get 'cha!
:csad:

LOL! Good post! :D

[Badger]

The original topic at hand wouldn't be a bad idea, instead of intentionally assaulting anyone who dares to take the Bible as fact, and trust Jesus Christ over themselves. My posts have always had some sort of tie to whatever discussion I've been involved in. Aside from your attacks on me and other believers, can you honestly say the same?

Agreed, although I doubt you know all the real reasons behind my faith. I trust in Christ because I need an eternal foundation that never changes. It'd be very difficult for me to trust anyone, God or man, if they flip-flopped on every moral, ethical, or spiritual stance.

And which "road" is that? It's true I don't like it when homosexuals approach me in that way, but then I'm certainly not alone in that regard. One of my favorite examples regarding evaluation vs. condemnation comes from the film "Jurassic Park", where John Hammond says, "I don't blame people for their mistakes...but I do ask that they pay for them."

The only thing I truly enjoy about any of this is the fact that no matter how my comments enrage the naysayers, they still return with questions, hoping for an answer they want...but when I simply reiterate what God has said for centuries in his Word, they go to find another question, hoping for a different result. I won't change my views simply because I'm asked or expected to. My allegiance is ultimately with the great God Almighty, and if that angers any of you, I aplogize. But I care more about what my adoptive Father thinks, thank you very much.


First, I am not attacking you. Simply put, our views are different, and I know I will not change your mind; nor do I want to. With that said, I'm going to express my views and/or my dislike for some of yours and I have no problem with you doing the same.

Last, I have no problem with your faith or faith in general. But when it's so blind that it limits your mindset and you don't think for yourself, it can be destructive to you and the people around you. Just my opinion. :cwink:

BTW referencing the Jurassic Park quote in this way is sad. :down

[Hotwire]

-delete-

[Hotwire]

Bah, seriously, they should get their own facililties not only for peace of mind for those who are not gay, but for their own protection. I wouldn't want a straight woman in the locker room checking out my junk any more than I'd want a gay man in there doing the same thing. Given my nature, I'd be inclined to clock a dude upside the head who's checking me out in close proximity like that, and I'm sure a lot of straight guys would feel the same way.

I was in the military during Clinton's reign, and I encountered more than a few gays. It wasn't really a big deal - it didn't even cross my mind until I was in various situations where privacy became an issue. When you put people (straight or gay) in close proximity with nude people they're attracted to, particularly in living quarters and/or other areas where the chance of becoming aroused is more than likely, it creates too much stress on all people involved. It would be like having a straight man in a women's locker room with a bunch of attractive, nude women around. I realize that'd be LOTS of fun for the man, but it certainly wouldn't be for the women, and who knows it could be detrimental to his safety.
So, segregation would be the way to go. Well, I guess retro is in right now.

[amazingfantasy15]

Does it really matter? It's stupid, the only reason for the rule is to appease homophobes and it truly is homophobes, people so scared of gay people they don't want them near them and afraid if in combat with a gay guy the gay guy will be more concerned with checking him or the enemy out to be engaged in the combat at hand. If I were fighting a war with beautiful girl next to me, I wouldn't be checking out the girl, I'd be much more concerned with not getting shot. Yes, there are very effeminate gays guys out there where the stereotypes might be true about them not being effective in combat, but I really don't think those are the type of gay guys enlisting in the military.

[PemLam]

:up: You get a cookie.

jag

:up: You also get a cookie.

jag

Pshaw! One does not..."DEMAND"...a cookie! Plebe! :down

jag

My fellow Americans. These are dire times. Our national cookie reserves are threatened by terrorists who would seek to take what is ours. We will not falter in our vigilance to stop these terrorists who want to destroy our cookie freedom. We have enacted wire-tapping and surveillance measures, and are detaining several suspects that we believe to be their leaders. We will not rest until each one of these terrorists is behind bars and paying the debt they owe to society. Freedom and liberty demand our strength. We shall give it to them.

jag

No! No! BAD lazur! Bad! No cookie for you! :cmad:

jag

There is truth in your words o' wise one...but your offerings beg the question of WHY YOU HAVE COOKIES IN THE FIRST PLACE...YOU, YOU, HEALHIST!

Get to the gym and do some crunches!

[Hotwire]

Does it really matter? It's stupid, the only reason for the rule is to appease homophobes and it truly is homophobes, people so scared of gay people they don't want them near them and afraid if in combat with a gay guy the gay guy will be more concerned with checking him or the enemy out to be engaged in the combat at hand. If I were fighting a war with beautiful girl next to me, I wouldn't be checking out the girl, I'd be much more concerned with not getting shot. Yes, there are very effeminate gays guys out there where the stereotypes might be true about them not being effective in combat, but I really don't think those are the type of gay guys enlisting in the military.
My feeling exactly. Hey, Jag, I know the supply is short, but can we get this guy a cookie?

[Zoken]

*has cookie... Flaunts cookie in front of Fish-Bulb* I has a cookie..

*Smacks self* Have. I have a cookie.

The problem I think a lot of people have with the idea of Gay people doing... well anything (military service, marriage, raising kids, etc.) is that they think the gay people will spend their time doing nothing but having homosexual sex. Which is really a rather idiotic notion. They will spend their time living their lives, and when they are intimate with their signifigant other, that's when they'll have homosexual sex. I know this goes against a lot of theories, but Homosexuals are not constantly horny and unable to control their sexual desires. No matter how much men wish the gay women were.

[Warhammer]

The gay thing shouldn't matter. If a gay man/woman wants to defend this country, go right on ahead. More power to him/her, because I know my ass won't be out there.

:up:

[PemLam]

The gay thing shouldn't matter. If a gay man/woman wants to defend this country, go right on ahead. More power to him/her, because I know my ass won't be out there.

:up:

Maybe if it was out there...more gay men would try to enlist.

[lazur]

Laaaaag....

[lazur]

So, segregation would be the way to go. Well, I guess retro is in right now.

No more segregated than separate men's and women's locker rooms.

We're talking about the military here - not everyday life where you report into an office and work with gay people. We're talking close quarters and shared facilities, to a large extent sharing 'personal space' with other people.

Sorry, but I don't want to share a shower or a dorm room or a barracks with a gay guy. I have no problem working side by side with him, but I do have a problem sharing my own personal space with him.

And that's MY preference - not his.

[jaguarr]

There is truth in your words o' wise one...but your offerings beg the question of WHY YOU HAVE COOKIES IN THE FIRST PLACE...YOU, YOU, HEALHIST!

Get to the gym and do some crunches!

I control the cookies so that all you fatties won't eat all of them. Notice I don't eat them, so who better to guard them? No cookie for you! But amazingfantasy....HE gets a cooke!

jag

[Superman]

Bah, seriously, they should get their own facililties not only for peace of mind for those who are not gay, but for their own protection. I wouldn't want a straight woman in the locker room checking out my junk any more than I'd want a gay man in there doing the same thing. Given my nature, I'd be inclined to clock a dude upside the head who's checking me out in close proximity like that, and I'm sure a lot of straight guys would feel the same way.

I was in the military during Clinton's reign, and I encountered more than a few gays. It wasn't really a big deal - it didn't even cross my mind until I was in various situations where privacy became an issue. When you put people (straight or gay) in close proximity with nude people they're attracted to, particularly in living quarters and/or other areas where the chance of becoming aroused is more than likely, it creates too much stress on all people involved. It would be like having a straight man in a women's locker room with a bunch of attractive, nude women around. I realize that'd be LOTS of fun for the man, but it certainly wouldn't be for the women, and who knows it could be detrimental to his safety.

Let me get this straight. You don't want gay men with you in the military because they might LOOK AT YOU in the locker room?

Oh yeay that's a good reason because we all know that if a gay man looks at you while you are nude, You will turn gay aswell.:whatever:

[Superman]

Someone please delete these double posts

[Superman]

Someone please delete these double posts

[lazur]

Let me get this straight. You don't want gay men with you in the military because they might LOOK AT YOU in the locker room?

Oh yeay that's a good reason because we all know that if a gay man looks at you while you are nude, You will turn gay aswell.:whatever:

Wow, you're lack of comprehension is just STAGGERING. Well, not really - I'm used to this sort of reactionary response from you after you've completely failed to absorb what I've ACTUALLY said.

I never said I don't want gays in the military. In fact, I said the EXACT opposite.

However, I do not want to share MY personal space (showers, dorms, barracks) with gays. They should have THEIR OWN space.

Look, if we're EVER going to get over the petty nature of people who wish to suppress gays, we first need to CATEGORICALLY recognize it. In order to do that, we have to be able to admit that it's okay. In order for it to be okay, society needs to change to accept it. In order to accept it, gays and straights need to be able to work in harmony. In order to work in harmony, they must first co-exist. In order to co-exist, we must make accommodations.

I do not care to shower with gay guys. That's MY right to privacy you'd be trampling all over by insisting that I should.

Now, please, get over yourself and get off your high horse for once in your life when you're responding to one of my posts.

Thanks.

[knowsbleed]

Shower with gays?

Man, I'm glad I joined the Air Force. I have my own shower :)

[Superman]

Wow, you're lack of comprehension is just STAGGERING. Well, not really - I'm used to this sort of reactionary response from you after you've completely failed to absorb what I've ACTUALLY said.

I never said I don't want gays in the military. In fact, I said the EXACT opposite.

However, I do not want to share MY personal space (showers, dorms, barracks) with gays. They should have THEIR OWN space.

Look, if we're EVER going to get over the petty nature of people who wish to suppress gays, we first need to CATEGORICALLY recognize it. In order to do that, we have to be able to admit that it's okay. In order for it to be okay, society needs to change to accept it. In order to accept it, gays and straights need to be able to work in harmony. In order to work in harmony, they must first co-exist. In order to co-exist, we must make accommodations.

I do not care to shower with gay guys. That's MY right to privacy you'd be trampling all over by insisting that I should.

Now, please, get over yourself and get off your high horse for once in your life when you're responding to one of my posts.

Thanks.

Blah blah blah, All I'm getting from this is that you want it "separate but equal". Sounds like the same crap they tried in the 50s with segregation in the schools. It was BS then and it's BS now.

[Badger]

Blah blah blah, All I'm getting from this is that you want it "separate but equal". Sounds like the same crap they tried in the 50s with segregation in the schools. It was BS then and it's BS now.


That's what I got from that as well. I don't know if that was his intention or not. If it wasn't, it was poorly worded. If it is, :down.

[lazur]

Blah blah blah, All I'm getting from this is that you want it "separate but equal". Sounds like the same crap they tried in the 50s with segregation in the schools. It was BS then and it's BS now.

Are you seriously equating race to sexual preference? Do you consider men's and women's rooms to be segregation? If not, why not?

[Hotwire]

Wow, you're lack of comprehension is just STAGGERING. Well, not really - I'm used to this sort of reactionary response from you after you've completely failed to absorb what I've ACTUALLY said.

I never said I don't want gays in the military. In fact, I said the EXACT opposite.

However, I do not want to share MY personal space (showers, dorms, barracks) with gays. They should have THEIR OWN space.

Look, if we're EVER going to get over the petty nature of people who wish to suppress gays, we first need to CATEGORICALLY recognize it. In order to do that, we have to be able to admit that it's okay. In order for it to be okay, society needs to change to accept it. In order to accept it, gays and straights need to be able to work in harmony. In order to work in harmony, they must first co-exist. In order to co-exist, we must make accommodations.

I do not care to shower with gay guys. That's MY right to privacy you'd be trampling all over by insisting that I should.

Now, please, get over yourself and get off your high horse for once in your life when you're responding to one of my posts.

Thanks.
I thinkt reason Superman got what he did from your arguement is that it sounds eriely familiar to the arguements made by the people who fought against desegregation. I understand that a gay man in the same shower room as you gives you the heebie-jeebies, but as for me and quite a few other guys on this thread, we are secure enough in our sexuality that we're not bothered by it. Besides, the military already has anti-fraternization rules. Men and women in the same platoon, squardron, etc. can't fraternize.

[Mr Sparkle]

Look, if we're EVER going to get over the petty nature of people who wish to suppress gays, we first need to CATEGORICALLY recognize it.

but your solution would not only recognize it, but VALIDATE it.
separate but equal doesn't work.
else we would have Gay restrooms in shopping malls and hospitals.
how about gay drinking fountains?

[jaguarr]

but your solution would not only recognize it, but VALIDATE it.
separate but equal doesn't work.
else we would have Gay restrooms in shopping malls and hospitals.
how about gay drinking fountains?

How about a gay shopping mall? It would be faaaaabulous! :stereotype!:

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

Are you seriously equating race to sexual preference? Do you consider men's and women's rooms to be segregation? If not, why not?

not my question, but pertinent to an argument I made.
so, you would also advocate separate but equal sections in other parts of daily life? not just the Army?
because there's no Gay showers at Gyms and they seem to work fine.
I think you're letting the typical stereotype of the "will and grace" type gay guy drive your perceptions.

[Mr Sparkle]

How about a gay shopping mall? It would be faaaaabulous! :stereotype!:

jag

I want to have a straight gay bar.
just for the confusion it would generate.

[jaguarr]

I want to have a straight gay bar.
just for the confusion it would generate.

A couple of the gay bars here have what they call "Straight Night", where straight people are encouraged to attend. That kind of cracks me up. When I was in college, we referred to it as "Recruitment Night" and "GHB Night". :D

jag

[Docker2.0]

How about they let gays in the military but if it's a problem for a straight troop, then have a gay troop. :dry:

Another thing, if they do start to draft for the military again, if I came out and said I was gay that means I don't have to go right? Bah! Let the gay law stand! :o

[SuperMonkey]

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! :woot: [/Dalek[

[ShadowBoxing]

I don't see what the problem is really. The next generation is just going to be all metro anyways, so everyone will be 'kind of gay'.

[Mr. Socko]

I do not care to shower with gay guys.


Showering with straight guys is so much more fun, right?

:up:

[Addendum]

Even though lazur may not want to shower with a gay person, if he was in the military, and if the military does away with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and has no discrimination against gays, his preference regarding "his" personal space doesn't matter.

[lazur]

Even though lazur may not want to shower with a gay person, if he was in the military, and if the military does away with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and has no discrimination against gays, his preference regarding "his" personal space doesn't matter.

If the military does away with "don't ask, don't tell" and gays are open about their sexuality, it's the gays who will take a bashing - not the straight people. Providing them separate living quarters will only provide for their own protection.

Plus, don't think for one second that there won't be problems if the living quarters aren't separated. You'll wind up with straight people raising a big stink over the issue, and you'll wind up with gays being singled out and persecuted for their sexual preference.

Again, this isn't about 'working with' or 'along side' gays. This is about sharing living space with them knowing full well that sexual tension exists and will manifest itself in different ways. When it comes right down to it, it's an infringement upon the rights of straight people to have gay people sharing living quarters and potentially creating 'sexual harassment' issues.

All I'm suggesting is that we save everyone a bunch of pain.

I understand if some people don't share my opinion. Then again, I bet most people chiming in on this debate have never even been in the military, and have no clue as to what close proximity living conditions are really like...

[Addendum]

No, I've not been in the military. But I've been in places with "close proximity living conditions" (summer camp, and 4 1/2 years of college, the first 3 1/2 years in a dorm with shared showers) and I have never thought if any of the guys in the cabin at summer camp or the dorm in college were gay.

With the various jobs I've had over the years, I have had a few co-workers that were gay. Aside from the difference in gender among those we were attracted to, there was a major similarity, which was that we were particular in whom we were attracted to.

As I said earlier in the thread, it's essentially the heterosexuals that think gay men have to bone every single guy that comes across their line of sight. That certainly isn't the case.

[lazur]

No, I've not been in the military. But I've been in places with "close proximity living conditions" (summer camp, and 4 1/2 years of college, the first 3 1/2 years in a dorm with shared showers) and I have never thought if any of the guys in the cabin at summer camp or the dorm in college were gay.

With the various jobs I've had over the years, I have had a few co-workers that were gay. Aside from the difference in gender among those we were attracted to, there was a major similarity, which was that we were particular in whom we were attracted to.

As I said earlier in the thread, it's essentially the heterosexuals that think gay men have to bone every single guy that comes across their line of sight. That certainly isn't the case.

I don't think gays 'want to bone every single guy' - what I do think, however, is that if they're attracted to their own gender, there's a lot of completely unnecessary sexual tension they have to endure if they DO see someone attractive to them. I mean, think about it, let's say you're a straight guy in a barracks with five women who are attractive, and let's assume you share the shower with them and you see them nude on a regular basis. Are you telling me you wouldn't CONSTANTLY be thinking about 'boning' those women?

As to close proximity living conditions, you don't live in a barracks in college. Also, living on campus is OPTIONAL. If something does go whacky in college, you have other options. Not the case in the military, as living in a barracks or dorm in the military isn't something you can 'opt out' of, nor is living out in the field. Additionally, military people are under WAY more stress than college kids. It's completely inappropriate that we force them into congested living quarters and add to that stress the fact they cannot obtain privacy from those who may be sexually attracted to them.

Again, if the military does do away with DADT, just wait and see what happens.

I have nothing against gays, but we aren't ONLY protecting the rights of gay people on this planet. We should be protecting the right to privacy, and from sexual harassment, of ALL people.

[Memphis Slim]

Cohesion....

[Sandman138]

Cohesion....

http://www.crystalinks.com/gay.hyakinthos.jpg

Look how cohered they are!:wow:

[Zoken]

Oh, what the hell is that supposed to mean Slim? You and Movie are the ones in here who lack cohesion in their arguments.

And while Lazur does make a semi-valid point, I still don't change my stance that the military's stance on homosexuals is unecessarily homophobic.

[888]

lazur does have a valid point. many straight soldiers would be disturbed and stressed about sharing quarters with a homosexual, and there would certainly be many acts of brutality commited against homosexuals. you know what though, sometimes you just have to throw caution to the wind and let the chips fall where they may. there were terrible acts of cruelty commited against blacks during the civil rights movement, but they were willing to accept the risk, and eventually everybody pulled through it, and now our country is better because of it. maybe now isn't the best time to lift this policy, because we're still embroiled in two wars, and it'd make things too chaotic. however, when ever peace time comes around again, they should just remove it, and deal with the consequences as they come.

[lazur]

lazur does have a valid point. many straight soldiers would be disturbed and stressed about sharing quarters with a homosexual, and there would certainly be many acts of brutality commited against homosexuals. you know what though, sometimes you just have to throw caution to the wind and let the chips fall where they may. there were terrible acts of cruelty commited against blacks during the civil rights movement, but they were willing to except the risk, and eventually everybody pulled through it, and now our country is better because of it. maybe now isn't the best time to lift this policy, because we're still embroiled in two wars, and it'd make things too chaotic. however, when ever peace time comes around again, they should just remove it, and deal with the consequences as they come.

I'm tired of people equating race to sexual preference. The two are nowhere NEAR the same thing.

[888]

i really don't give a damn if you're tired of it or not. i equate it with race, you don't, deal with it.

[MaskedManJRK]

I'm tired of people equating race to sexual preference. The two are nowhere NEAR the same thing.

Let's see here:

-It's a part of someone, something they can't control
-There's a large amount of violence against them
-They're (and have been) denied rights that should be there because they're American citizens.

Yeah, it's almost exactly the same thing.

[888]

the only difference i can see between the two is that homosexuals can hide what they are, but they shouldn't ****ing have to.

[PemLam]

the only difference i can see between the two is that homosexuals can hide what they are, but they shouldn't ****ing have to.

What's the significance of "888"....aside from it being between 887 and 889?

[888]

666 was taken. :(

[Memphis Slim]

Let's see here:

-It's a part of someone, something they can't control
-There's a large amount of violence against them
-They're (and have been) denied rights that should be there because they're American citizens.

Yeah, it's almost exactly the same thing.


Then how are there EX-homosexuals??

[Mr. Socko]

Then how are there EX-homosexuals??


Same way there are ex-black people?http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051129/051129_scoop_jackson_vmed.widec.jpg

[lazur]

Let's see here:

-It's a part of someone, something they can't control
-There's a large amount of violence against them
-They're (and have been) denied rights that should be there because they're American citizens.

Yeah, it's almost exactly the same thing.

Race and sexual preference have nothing in common. One could also say that pedophiles 'can't help but be pedophiles', but that doesn't make it so. Now don't misinterpret - I'm not saying gays have a choice, but I am saying that it's no more an identifier of who someone is than other 'tendencies' people have. You're born with race - you aren't born with a sexual preference. That doesn't occur until later in life, after puberty.

As for violence, there's violence against everyone. In today's American culture, violence is punishible by the law, irrespective of who the target is.

I'm sorry, I don't see it as a 'right' for a gay person to be able to cohabitate with those who aren't gay. If anything, I see it as MY right *NOT* to cohabitate with someone who's gay.

But it sounds like you could care less about the rights of everyone else, as long as gays are able to partake of the 'convenience' of being able to inhabit the lives of non-gays.

I do, however, equate sexual preference with sexual identity. A woman is a woman by gender, but if she's gay and prefers to be with women romantically/sexually, it creates far too much pressure and stress for those whom she may target with her sexual advances. As you say, they're born that way and can't just turn it off.

On the one hand, you don't want gays to have to hide who they are. On the other hand, if they don't hide who they are, you want them to be able to have access that men and women don't have to each other (cohabitation between people who are not romantically involved, but ARE sexually attracted to each other).

It's not right. Whether you share in that opinion makes absolutely no difference to me. If DADT is removed and gays are 'open' about their sexual preference, it will create a mess in the military. If someone doesn't like co-habitating with a person of color, it's racism. If someone doesn't like co-habitating with a person who's gay, it's a matter of privacy. The two are NOTHING alike.

[jaguarr]

Race and sexual preference have nothing in common. One could also say that pedophiles 'can't help but be pedophiles', but that doesn't make it so. Now don't misinterpret - I'm not saying gays have a choice, but I am saying that it's no more an identifier of who someone is than other 'tendencies' people have. You're born with race - you aren't born with a sexual preference. That doesn't occur until later in life, after puberty.

As for violence, there's violence against everyone. In today's American culture, violence is punishible by the law, irrespective of who the target is.

I'm sorry, I don't see it as a 'right' for a gay person to be able to cohabitate with those who aren't gay. If anything, I see it as MY right *NOT* to cohabitate with someone who's gay.

But it sounds like you could care less about the rights of everyone else, as long as gays are able to partake of the 'convenience' of being able to inhabit the lives of non-gays.

I do, however, equate sexual preference with sexual identity. A woman is a woman by gender, but if she's gay and prefers to be with women romantically/sexually, it creates far too much pressure and stress for those whom she may target with her sexual advances. As you say, they're born that way and can't just turn it off.

On the one hand, you don't want gays to have to hide who they are. On the other hand, if they don't hide who they are, you want them to be able to have access that men and women don't have to each other (cohabitation between people who are not romantically involved, but ARE sexually attracted to each other).

It's not right. Whether you share in that opinion makes absolutely no difference to me. If DADT is removed and gays are 'open' about their sexual preference, it will create a mess in the military. If someone doesn't like co-habitating with a person of color, it's racism. If someone doesn't like co-habitating with a person who's gay, it's a matter of privacy. The two are NOTHING alike.

Don't the rules against fraternization the military have in place pretty much cover this, though? Fraternization isn't supposed to happen at all, regardless of gender. Having gay people engaging in sexual activity on "company time" would be just as punishable as hetero hookups happening.

jag

[888]

If anything, I see it as MY right *NOT* to cohabitate with someone who's gay.


did they reinstate the draft? don't join if you have such a stick up your ass about it that it trumps your "love" for this country. open homosexuals don't have that right either way.

[lazur]

Don't the rules against fraternization the military have in place pretty much cover this, though? Fraternization isn't supposed to happen at all, regardless of gender. Having gay people engaging in sexual activity on "company time" would be just as punishable as hetero hookups happening.

jag

It's not engagement in sexual activity that would be the concern. Obviously a gay guy isn't going to engage in sexual activity with straight guys. It's the unease the situation would create for both the gay guy *and* the straight guys, and the resulting complaints that would occur.

It's an invasion of privacy. You're taking people who are attracted to the same sex and then putting them into a situation where they have access to view others of the same sex in a private environment. Just as you wouldn't take a man and put him in a women's barracks, even if he's the most well-behaved gentleman on the planet, you shouldn't do so with gays. It's the same thing.

[Memphis Slim]

Same way there are ex-black people?http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051129/051129_scoop_jackson_vmed.widec.jpg


Surgery?
You've proved my point. If it's permanent on a genetic level, it cannot be changed. There are ex-gays because it's not genetic. They can change.

Michael Jackson is still this, on a genetic level...

http://labullesonore.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2007/09/jackson5.1190901498.jpg

[lazur]

did they reinstate the draft? don't join if you have such a stick up your ass about it that it trumps your "love" for this country. open homosexuals don't have that right either way.

I did my time in the military, tyvm. Did you?

And this is a friendly debate. Quit being a jerk.

[jaguarr]

By the way, the REAL worry would be the kind of person who would NOT out themselves as gay so that they COULD share showers and quarters with all those hot, hot straight men who like to parade around naked in the barracks. Oh, wait....that's already happening. You just don't know who they are. :dry:

jag

[jaguarr]

It's not engagement in sexual activity that would be the concern. Obviously a gay guy isn't going to engage in sexual activity with straight guys. It's the unease the situation would create for both the gay guy *and* the straight guys, and the resulting complaints that would occur.

It's an invasion of privacy. You're taking people who are attracted to the same sex and then putting them into a situation where they have access to view others of the same sex in a private environment. Just as you wouldn't take a man and put him in a women's barracks, even if he's the most well-behaved gentleman on the planet, you shouldn't do so with gays. It's the same thing.

All of that happens RIGHT NOW under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

jag

[lazur]

By the way, the REAL worry would be the kind of person who would NOT out themselves as gay so that they COULD share showers and quarters with all those hot, hot straight men who like to parade around naked in the barracks. Oh, wait....that's already happening. You just don't know who they are. :dry:

jag

Right, and not knowing who they are offers protection to both gay and straight people. Thus, the DADT policy is okay with me.

But if the DADT policy is removed, other considerations need to be made. That's all I'm trying to get at.

[jaguarr]

Surgery?
You've proved my point. If it's permanent on a genetic level, it cannot be changed. There are ex-gays because it's not genetic. They can change.

Michael Jackson is still this, on a genetic level...

http://labullesonore.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2007/09/jackson5.1190901498.jpg

You sort of proved his point. He was saying that ex-gays happen by going directly against nature. They're still gay at the genetic level.

jag

[jaguarr]

Right, and not knowing who they are offers protection to both gay and straight people. Thus, the DADT policy is okay with me.

But if the DADT policy is removed, other considerations need to be made. That's all I'm trying to get at.

I really don't see how DADT protects anyone, to be honest. It's a sham.

jag

[888]

You sort of proved his point. He was saying that ex-gays happen by going directly against nature. They're still gay at the genetic level.

jag

exactly, priests no longer have sex with women, that means they're no longer straight! right? :huh:

[Memphis Slim]

By the way, the REAL worry would be the kind of person who would NOT out themselves as gay so that they COULD share showers and quarters with all those hot, hot straight men who like to parade around naked in the barracks. Oh, wait....that's already happening. You just don't know who they are. :dry:

jag

"AND NOT KNOWING, IS HALF THE BATTLE!"


http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss1001/gijoe.jpg

[lazur]

I really don't see how DADT protects anyone, to be honest. It's a sham.

jag

Hmm, it allows gay people to join the military without being singled out. That sounds like a fair amount of protection to me.

Given the laws against sexual harassment in this country, just give some thought into how many claims of sexual harassment would be made against gays (and vice versa) if cohabitation was required in the military between gay and straight people.

Maybe some would be frivolous, maybe some wouldn't. Point being, if someone is openly gay and resides in the living quarters of those who aren't, the cohabitation rules would have to change to accommodate the law. Otherwise, people would be suing each other left and right.

Again, this isn't about discrimination. It's about privacy.

[PemLam]

exactly, priests no longer have sex with women, that means they're no longer straight! right? :huh:

Right...they no longer have sex with "women". :o

[888]

i didn't think it was a very good example either:(

[DBella]

I really don't see how DADT protects anyone, to be honest. It's a sham.

jag
Just like security checks at the airports?

[888]

"AND NOT KNOWING, IS HALF THE BATTLE!"


http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss1001/gijoe.jpg


you're right! we should stop listening to what the majority says, and start legislating on the assumption that the miniscule minority is right!

[Memphis Slim]

You sort of proved his point. He was saying that ex-gays happen by going directly against nature. They're still gay at the genetic level.

jag


You can't change your genes. Mike is black. Ex- Homosexuals change behavior....they no longer desire those of the same sex. If it was genetic, they could not fight that. But many do.

[Memphis Slim]

you're right! we should stop listening to what the majority says, and start legislating on the assumption that the miniscule minority is right!


Majority??? http://bibleforums.org/forum/images/smilies/lol.gif

[DBella]

Hmm, it allows gay people to join the military without being singled out. That sounds like a fair amount of protection to me.

Given the laws against sexual harassment in this country, just give some thought into how many claims of sexual harassment would be made against gays (and vice versa) if cohabitation was required in the military between gay and straight people.

Maybe some would be frivolous, maybe some wouldn't. Point being, if someone is openly gay and resides in the living quarters of those who aren't, the cohabitation rules would have to change to accommodate the law. Otherwise, people would be suing each other left and right.

Again, this isn't about discrimination. It's about privacy.
But once they, the military, find out that a person is gay, he/she will be discharged. How is that not discrimination? Oh right, they (the gay individuals) are being discharged to protect them.

On one hand, I understand and agree with most of what you're saying, except that last part (bolded). That, I find it hard to agree with.

[jaguarr]

You can't change your genes. Mike is black. Ex- Homosexuals change behavior....they no longer desire those of the same sex. If it was genetic, they could not fight that. But many do.

Haha! Wrong. They just no longer act on those desires and work real hard to suppress them. Big difference.

jag

[jaguarr]

Hmm, it allows gay people to join the military without being singled out. That sounds like a fair amount of protection to me.

Given the laws against sexual harassment in this country, just give some thought into how many claims of sexual harassment would be made against gays (and vice versa) if cohabitation was required in the military between gay and straight people.

Maybe some would be frivolous, maybe some wouldn't. Point being, if someone is openly gay and resides in the living quarters of those who aren't, the cohabitation rules would have to change to accommodate the law. Otherwise, people would be suing each other left and right.

Again, this isn't about discrimination. It's about privacy.

It's about discrimination.

jag

[lazur]

It's about discrimination.

jag

Ah okay, so then we can formulate the same conclusion as for why there are separate men's and women's restrooms then.

[jaguarr]

Ah okay, so then we can formulate the same conclusion as for why there are separate men's and women's restrooms then.

So, I keep hearing people say that they don't equate sexual identity with gender, but this type of question directly tries to do that. Which is it?

jag

[888]

Majority??? http://bibleforums.org/forum/images/smilies/lol.gif

majority of homosexuals. compare the ratio between homosexuals who say they were born with the predisposition to be attracted to their same sex, to homosexuals who some how turned on a dime, and were suddenly and magically cured.

[lazur]

But once they, the military, find out that a person is gay, he/she will be discharged. How is that not discrimination? Oh right, they (the gay individuals) are being discharged to protect them.

On one hand, I understand and agree with most of what you're saying, except that last part (bolded). That, I find it hard to agree with.

I don't consider it discrimination if I want my PRIVACY away from ANYone, regardless of sexual orientation/preference, who may be attracted to me, and for whom I do not share the attraction. I wouldn't walk around naked in front of women who are attracted to me that I do not find attractive. Same goes for gays.

[DBella]

I don't consider it discrimination if I want my PRIVACY away from ANYone, regardless of sexual orientation/preference, who may be attracted to me.
How can it not be discrimination when you're being involuntarily discharged? Shouldn't the decision to either conceal or reveal one's sexuality be that person's choice?

[jaguarr]

I don't consider it discrimination if I want my PRIVACY away from ANYone, regardless of sexual orientation/preference, who may be attracted to me.

I'm guessing no one bothers you much, then. :p Sorry, had to take that one. :D

In all honesty? It's not about you. I have a lot of gay friends. They could care less about straight guys. They may find one attractive but that's the end of it. They aren't interested in you and I think a lot of hetero guys have this complex that every gay guy in the area is going to be trying to get them to have some hot buttsecks with them and the reality is, they aren't interested in us.

jag

[lazur]

So, I keep hearing people say that they don't equate sexual identity with gender, but this type of question directly tries to do that. Which is it?

jag

You haven't heard *me* say that. The two are the same. The only differences are the sex organs.

For all the same reasons you all claim gays should be able to cohabitate with straights, I can make the same argument for why men and women should cohabitate as well.

[lazur]

How can it not be discrimination when you're being involuntarily discharged? Shouldn't the decision to either conceal or reveal one's sexuality be that person's choice?

It's the lesser of two evils. DADT may be discrimination, but gays have it *better* under DADT than they would if that were lifted and being 'openly' gay became acceptable.

[jaguarr]

You haven't heard *me* say that. The two are the same. The only differences are the sex organs.

For all the same reasons you all claim gays should be able to cohabitate with straights, I can make the same argument for why men and women should cohabitate as well.

Ahhh. That context helps explains some of your positions. Thanks for that. I really don't agree that a gay man = a female, so that's a big point of divergence for you and I. We'll never agree or even come to an understanding on this one.

jag

[888]

one difference is that it's much easier for a man to rape a woman than a man to rape another man, in general

[Sandman138]

Surgery?
You've proved my point. If it's permanent on a genetic level, it cannot be changed. There are ex-gays because it's not genetic. They can change.

Michael Jackson is still this, on a genetic level...

http://labullesonore.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2007/09/jackson5.1190901498.jpg

You trying to lecture anybody about genetics is more ironic than a monkey ****ing dinosaur in a pope suit.

http://userpic.livejournal.com/55241648/24755

[The Original Bamfer]

Haha, wait? Gay men are just women with penises?

Then, explain to me this: I'm attracted to a woman with a great personality - why, then, have I not been attracted to any gay men?

[Mr. Socko]

You can't change your genes. Mike is black. Ex- Homosexuals change behavior....they no longer desire those of the same sex. If it was genetic, they could not fight that. But many do.

If they are gay they still do...don't believe that "ex-gay" pish posh. Unfortunately, they are people who are ashamed of who they are and simply try to repress those feelings.

[lazur]

Ahhh. That context helps explains some of your positions. Thanks for that. I really don't agree that a gay man = a female, so that's a big point of divergence for you and I. We'll never agree or even come to an understanding on this one.

jag

I have a very logic-based brain (sometimes too black and white for my own good). To me, a gay man and a straight woman are both attracted to men, not by choice, but by nature.

Why do you think it is that gay men and straight women get along so well?

That's not to say that gay men *are* women, but they do share the same sexual interests.

And that's where this becomes a privacy issue for me.

[888]

plus, it's alot easier to repress feelings than he thinks.

[jaguarr]

I have a very logic-based brain (sometimes too black and white for my own good). To me, a gay man and a straight woman are both attracted to men, not by choice, but by nature.

Why do you think it is that gay men and straight women get along so well?

That's not to say that gay men *are* women, but they do share the same sexual interests.

And that's where this becomes a privacy issue for me.

You realize that's sort of an urban legend kind of thing, right? Gay men and straight women don't magically get along, dude.

jag

[The Original Bamfer]

Why do you think it is that gay men and straight women get along so well?

I get along with straight men, straight women, gay men and gay women just fine. So, that must make me male, female, magical, an awesome chef and able to fly, right? :huh:

[888]

i guess a *** hag is a mythical creature, much like a yeti.

[jaguarr]

I get along with straight men, straight women, gay men and gay women just fine. So, that must make me male, female, magical, an awesome chef and able to fly, right? :huh:

Do you do windows, too?

jag

[Sandman138]

i guess a *** hag is a mythical creature, much like a yeti.


http://www.alessonislearned.com/cmx/lesson014.gif

[lazur]

You realize that's sort of an urban legend kind of thing, right? Gay men and straight women don't magically get along, dude.

jag

Not really. I have a few lady friends who have a lot of gay guy friends. They hang out and enjoy a lot of the same activities. Not all of them act feminine, but some do. The primary reason why the friendships form so easily is because the women don't feel threatened (or under sexual pressure), or at least that's what they tell me.

[Zoken]

Can I ask what happens if a person enlisted in the military is outed as Gay or homosexual?

[Steve Rogers]

Can I ask what happens if a person enlisted in the military is outed as Gay or homosexual?

I believe he/she is kicked out.

[Zoken]

Well that's just rediculous. That means all a draft dodger would have to do is endure a couple of steamy same-sex kisses and he's out.

[jaguarr]

Not really. I have a few lady friends who have a lot of gay guy friends. They hang out and enjoy a lot of the same activities. Not all of them act feminine, but some do. The primary reason why the friendships form so easily is because the women don't feel threatened (or under sexual pressure), or at least that's what they tell me.

It doesn't mean that all straight women magically get along with gay men, though.

jag

[Steve Rogers]

Well that's just rediculous. That means all a draft dodger would have to do is endure a couple of steamy same-sex kisses and he's out.People were known to lie about their sexuality during Vietnam just to get out of service.

[Zoken]

Realty-1
Corp. Klinger-0

And I feel stupid for asking, but the guy in your avy, that's Maj. Winters from Band of Brothers and Charlie Crews from Life, right?

[Steve Rogers]

Realty-1
Corp. Klinger-0

And I feel stupid for asking, but the guy in your avy, that's Maj. Winters from Band of Brothers and Charlie Crews from Life, right?
Actually it's Damian Lewis. He plays those guys, but the pic is of him as himself, not in character. I chose it because I want him to play Cap.

[CaptainAmerica]

I'd rather see him as the Question.

[YsoSerious]

Seems to me if an openly gay soldier wants to be in the military he'd make a good brave soldier.Like what do people think-he enlisted in the military just so he could scope out guys?

[Mr Sparkle]

You can't change your genes. Mike is black. Ex- Homosexuals change behavior....they no longer desire those of the same sex. If it was genetic, they could not fight that. But many do.

if it's not genetic why does it need be fought at all?

[Mr Sparkle]

Hmm, it allows gay people to join the military without being singled out. That sounds like a fair amount of protection to me.


they shouldn't be singled out to begin with.
DADT perpetuates a bad situation, it doesn't fix it.

[Mr Sparkle]

Ah okay, so then we can formulate the same conclusion as for why there are separate men's and women's restrooms then.

but you never answered why there aren't any "gay" restrooms in shopping malls, airports or even gyms, why is this division only valid in the army?
:huh:

[Zoken]

Actually it's Damian Lewis. He plays those guys, but the pic is of him as himself, not in character. I chose it because I want him to play Cap.
He would make a good Cap. but a better Question

[Addendum]

let's say you're a straight guy in a barracks with five women who are attractive, and let's assume you share the shower with them and you see them nude on a regular basis. Are you telling me you wouldn't CONSTANTLY be thinking about 'boning' those women?


At first I would initially about it. Then I would also think about the regulations regarding fraternization among soldiers of the opposite sex, plus I would also think about my personal safety if things didn't work out with one of them and I'd then try another one, because they know where I sleep, they are also my squad mates.

So while it would be cool to bang one or all of them, logic in the end wins out, and so in this hypothetical situation I would be stuck with a perpetual boner.

[Moviefan2k4]

if it's not genetic why does it need be fought at all?Because unlike what politically-correct morons teach, some things are simply wrong, plain and simple. Not everything's moral stance is up for debate or redefinition.

[Addendum]

Unless you're one of the 2 guys making out it's not your ****ing business

[Superhobo]

Because unlike what politically-correct morons teach, some things are simply wrong, plain and simple. Not everything's moral stance is up for debate or redefinition.

:whatever:


Listen, there are a number of things in your own Bible that fit that very definition. You may not like to hear it, but by your own deftly stupid fundamentalist logic, your Bible is filled with hundreds of immoral, stupid rules, in the OT and NT. These include slavery, and the subjugation of women, among other things. You cannot debate this; it's plain fact.

And, yes. EVERYONE's moral stance is up for debate, you dweeb

.

Oh, btw: definition of a fundamentalist, since you so adamantly deny that you are one:

"
Main Entry:
fun·da·men·tal·ism Listen to the pronunciation of fundamentalism
Pronunciation:
\-tə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1922

1 often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs 2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"


Both of these definitions apply to you, but the highlighted one most of all.

[Badger]

:whatever:


Listen, there are a number of things in your own Bible that fit that very definition. You may not like to hear it, but by your own deftly stupid fundamentalist logic, your Bible is filled with hundreds of immoral, stupid rules, in the OT and NT. These include slavery, and the subjugation of women, among other things. You cannot debate this; it's plain fact.

And, yes. EVERYONE's moral stance is up for debate, you dweeb

.

Oh, btw: definition of a fundamentalist, since you so adamantly deny that you are one:

"
Main Entry:
fun·da·men·tal·ism Listen to the pronunciation of fundamentalism
Pronunciation:
\-tə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1922

1 often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs 2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"


Both of these definitions apply to you, but the highlighted one most of all.

Give that man a Klondike Bar.

:up:

[Superhobo]

Give that man a Klondike Bar.

:up:

Yum.

http://www.icecreamplanet.com/AA.klondikeoriginal.jpg

[Moviefan2k4]

With regard to fundamentalism, you fail to mention that not long ago, being called a "fundamentalist" was a mark of honor and respect, rather than scorn.

Secondly, since you love to demand proof, would you care to provide it with regards to the Bible supposedly "subjugating" women, or actually condoning slavery outright? Scripture mentions many things, both positive and negative, that took place in olden times. That doesn't mean it necessarily promotes such things.

[Superhobo]

With regard to fundamentalism, you fail to mention that not long ago, being called a "fundamentalist" was a mark of honor and respect, rather than scorn.

Secondly, since you love to demand proof, would you care to provide it with regards to the Bible supposedly "subjugating" women, or actually condoning slavery outright? Scripture mentions many things, both positive and negative, that took place in olden times. That doesn't mean it necessarily promotes such things.

You obviously don't know your own holy book very well. It not only supports such things, it gives guidelines for them!

(Excuse me if my response is late; I'm on dial-up at the moment)

Subjugation of women:

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.


Among others, which you must be familiar with by now, considering all the arguments we've had about them (plus, dial-up sucks, and I don't wanna spend three more hours finding verses). This applies to the slavery argument as well.

[lazur]

but you never answered why there aren't any "gay" restrooms in shopping malls, airports or even gyms, why is this division only valid in the army?
:huh:

Simply, in my opinion, the military is different because it *forces* people into *prolonged* periods of time of cohabitation. Walking into a restroom and taking a whiz isn't revealing to anyone else, nor is taking a shower in a gym (most have private shower stalls with curtains). But LIVING with others is a completely different animal, particularly in the military where in most barracks the toilets aren't even in stalls, let alone the showers.

You're an intelligent guy - I'm amazed you'd even ask that.

[Addendum]

Since the military does force "people into prolonged periods of time of cohabitation", your complaints of privacy regarding the military is moot.

Especially with the fact that when someone does join the military, the government will have access to your DNA and fingerprints.

If someone values their privacy, then they shouldn't join the military

[Badger]

Simply, in my opinion, the military is different because it *forces* people into *prolonged* periods of time of cohabitation. Walking into a restroom and taking a whiz isn't revealing to anyone else, nor is taking a shower in a gym (most have private shower stalls with curtains). But LIVING with others is a completely different animal, particularly in the military where in most barracks the toilets aren't even in stalls, let alone the showers.

You're an intelligent guy - I'm amazed you'd even ask that.

I'm amazed he even has too.

[Hotwire]

Because unlike what politically-correct morons teach, some things are simply wrong, plain and simple. Not everything's moral stance is up for debate or redefinition.
Why? Just because you say so? And who's to define the morals? Your bible? And if so, why can't someone else's religion define the morals we all live by? See, we live in a country where we are free to believe whatever religion we want, so it's only fair that if we allow Christians to legislate their beliefs, then we should allow Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, and Athiests to do the same.

[Moviefan2k4]

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." ~1 Corinthians 14:34-35~This passage does not condemn or repress women; it simply describes what the Law said, and the customs that took place in the early days of the church. Sermons in those days were considered so sacred, that no one was to interrupt unless they were specifically given something to say from God. Also, bear in mind that 1st-century culture was a time when the "women's rights" movement hadn't taken place yet. In that day and age, women and men just accepted what God had said on the matter. Also, I doubt very much that Christian men held it over women's heads as some superiority crap, because they had much more respect for both women and God. They knew the Father would hold them accountable for how they treated their wives.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." ~Ephesians 5:22-24~This section has been misconstrued for years. When God says, "Wives, submit to your husbands", notice what He doesn't say. God doesn't say, "Obey your husbands no matter how awful they treat you", because that would give abusive men a license to mistreat their wives. Instead, God says, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as they do unto the Lord." Also, check this out...

"Therefore, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ...For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her, to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church." ~Ephesians 5:21, 25-29~

God designed a process in marriage, where major decisions were concerned: first is God, then the husband, then the wife. Let's say (for discussion's sake), there's a married couple named Mark and Lucy. Lucy openly speaks with Mark on an equal level. If Mark is faithful to God, then he will accept what Lucy has to say, and then both will ask God about it. After that, the final decision rests with Mark. Why? Because both are called to serve selflessly, and in different ways. Mark is to love and protect his wife, because he loves her, and loves God even more. Lucy is to love and honor her husband, not because he's better than her (which he isn't), but because she loves God even more than Mark. By serving each other, instead of themselves, they show their dedication and obedience to the Father who united them to begin with.

Sadly, marriage has largely become less about holy commitment, and more about legalism and control. As long as both fight for the reins, nothing will change. But if they give control over their marriage to God, He will guide them, lovingly and properly.

[Badger]

^How fun, dueling banjos.

[Hotwire]

Since the military does force "people into prolonged periods of time of cohabitation", your complaints of privacy regarding the military is moot.

Especially with the fact that when someone does join the military, the government will have access to your DNA and fingerprints.

If someone values their privacy, then they shouldn't join the military
This is very true. I was in the army for three years and there is no such thing as privacy there. Group barracks, showers with no curtains, and don't even get me started on the "field latrines". And besides, lazur, if having to share close personal space with a gay man bothers you, why doesn't bother you when they step up to the unrinal or shower head next to yours?

[Hotwire]

This passage does not condemn or repress women; it simply describes what the Law said, and the customs that took place in the early days of the church. Sermons in those days were considered so sacred, that no one was to interrupt unless they were specifically given something to say from God. Also, bear in mind that 1st-century culture was a time when the "women's rights" movement hadn't taken place yet. In that day and age, women and men just accepted what God had said on the matter. Also, I doubt very much that Christian men held it over women's heads as some superiority crap, because they had much more respect for both women and God. They knew the Father would hold them accountable for how they treated their wives.

This section has been misconstrued for years. When God says, "Wives, submit to your husbands", notice what He doesn't say. God doesn't say, "Obey your husbands no matter how awful they treat you", because that would give abusive men a license to mistreat their wives. Instead, God says, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as they do unto the Lord." Also, check this out...

"Therefore, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ...For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her, to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church." ~Ephesians 5:21, 25-29~

God designed a process in marriage, where major decisions were concerned: first is God, then the husband, then the wife. Let's say (for discussion's sake), there's a married couple named Mark and Lucy. Lucy openly speaks with Mark on an equal level. If Mark is faithful to God, then he will accept what Lucy has to say, and then both will ask God about it. After that, the final decision rests with Mark. Why? Because both are called to serve selflessly, and in different ways. Mark is to love and protect his wife, because he loves her, and loves God even more. Lucy is to love and honor her husband, not because he's better than her (which he isn't), but because she loves God even more than Mark. By serving each other, instead of themselves, they show their dedication and obedience to the Father who united them to begin with.

Sadly, marriage has largely become less about holy commitment, and more about legalism and control. As long as both fight for the reins, nothing will change. But if they give control over their marriage to God, He will guide them, lovingly and properly.
OK, so when it suits you, you can discount what is in the bible? Those passages say that women are to serve their husbands and not speak in church. Even if the law was the law in those days, and we (humans) changed these rules, this goes against what you've said before, that the bible is the truth and that it is above question.

[rizzo51]

Spraying? :confused:

That's how us girls do it, we sneak up on people and spray like those little dinosaurs in jarrasic park... fear our spray......

[Mr Sparkle]

Because unlike what politically-correct morons teach, some things are simply wrong, plain and simple. Not everything's moral stance is up for debate or redefinition.

"not everything's moral stance is up for debate"?
that doesn't even make sense man.
I'll make you a deal, this is not a debate and I'd like to answer it.

simple question.

how do gay people, and their sexual orientation affect you or others adversely?

see, like when "thou shalt not kill" and all? that one makes sense, because well, murder has victims.
thou shalt not lie? well, that makes sense sometimes but not always.
but "no homos allowed"? seems weird for a guy like Jesus that was all about inclusion.
also, the mixed fabrics thing makes no sense to me, but there's a ton of wacky things that I don't see you railing against, or maybe I missed your thread denouncing the Gap's spring catalog.
but the crux of this little argument is simple.

how do gay people, and their sexual orientation affect you or others adversely?

because if you look up the concept of morality ( please do, you will be surprised) It actually predates Christianity.
wow, shocker!
so now that you now this, you should also know that it's derived from "ethics" ( look into that one and you will also be surprised) and then apply this to my question.

so, to recap.

how do gay people, and their sexual orientation affect you or others adversely?

I'm specifically looking for the justification of this oh-so-moral concept you have such high regard for.
see, because I don't want the tired "the butthole is for pooping" explanation, because guess what? since god didn't give us wings it means of course that he didn't want us to fly, I guess that Jet Blue is an abomination to you.:huh:
also, I's like for you to produce some evidence that Jesus disliked Lesbians.
because the bible kind of doesn't mention Homosexuality that often and infact, I remember correctly is mentioned in like the Leviticus Holiness code a code that Christians don't even follow anymore.
so again, I'd like for you to seriously address these questions as I'm really looking forward to your answers.
because seriously, spewing rhetoric is really easy, but thinking for yourself?

that's a tad more difficult.:cwink:

[Sandman138]

Because unlike what politically-correct morons teach, some things are simply wrong, plain and simple. Not everything's moral stance is up for debate or redefinition.

Morality is nothing more than a tacit contract between peoples of specific cultures and it has been up for debate in all societies for as long as the written word has existed. Try reading more than just one book Patty Hearst.:o

[Zoken]

With regard to fundamentalism, you fail to mention that not long ago, being called a "fundamentalist" was a mark of honor and respect, rather than scorn.

Secondly, since you love to demand proof, would you care to provide it with regards to the Bible supposedly "subjugating" women, or actually condoning slavery outright? Scripture mentions many things, both positive and negative, that took place in olden times. That doesn't mean it necessarily promotes such things.

You know, I could have told you he was going to take this and intellectually *****-slap you with it. It was just not smart to ask. If you want the passages about slavery, look through Deuteronomy and Numbers.

And that passage doesn't tell "People" to be silent in church, it tells women. So either you are arguing that Paul thought women too stupid to know this but men didn't need to be told, or he's specifically telling women not to speak in church because it's worse for them to do it than a man.

and the word "Obey" is very loaded. The old marriage vows for a woman where "Love, honor, and obey". I know my mother went with "Love, honor, and cherish". If you had ounce one of empathy in you, you'd understand how that passage sounds to a woman.

[C.F. Kane]

With regard to fundamentalism, you fail to mention that not long ago, being called a "fundamentalist" was a mark of honor and respect, rather than scorn.

...and "Negro" was an acceptable term. What's your point?

[Avalanche]

Soldiers just need to stop whining. What, they can risk their lives getting shot at fighting in a war they don't believe in but they can't handle getting eyed up by another guy.

Get out.

[hammy]

:whatever:

[Hotwire]

Soldiers just need to stop whining. What, they can risk their lives getting shot at fighting in a war they don't believe in but they can't handle getting eyed up by another guy.

Get out.
I know I'd be more worried about getting shot.

[hammy]

There are other ways of getting shot. :O

[Hotwire]

There are other ways of getting shot. :O
This is true, but being an army infantryman, really ups your chances.

[jaguarr]

Morality is nothing more than a tacit contract between peoples of specific cultures and it has been up for debate in all societies for as long as the written word has existed. Try reading more than just one book Patty Hearst.:o

LOL! That comment cracked me up, man. :up:

jag

[Superhobo]

For example, age of consent. Who's regarded as a pedophile here would be regarded as a relatively normal dude in a whole lot of tribal societies, among other places.