Discussion: Gay Rights II

[The Senator]

The government cannot force any religion to do something that goes against their teachings. Such action or actions would violate the free exercise clause in the first amendment.

The various religions can choose to administer same-sex weddings or not, just like heterosexual weddings. However, some heterosexual weddings are done with no involvement from any religion. So the idea that gay weddings will weaken heterosexual marriages and any religion is moot.

That's pretty much what I've been getting at... I just don't want to see a bunch of super-liberals charging into the streets demanding the Catholic Church to recognize gay marriage when they are perfectly within their rights not to recognize the practice...

And I also understand that heterosexual weddings can be performed without involvement from any religion... my mother and father had a 'civil union'...

[The Senator]

The government cannot force any religion to do something that goes against their teachings. Such action or actions would violate the free exercise clause in the first amendment.

The various religions can choose to administer same-sex weddings or not, just like heterosexual weddings. However, some heterosexual weddings are done with no involvement from any religion. So the idea that gay weddings will weaken heterosexual marriages and any religion is moot.

That's pretty much what I've been getting at... I just don't want to see a bunch of super-liberals charging into the streets demanding the Catholic Church to recognize gay marriage when they are perfectly within their rights not to recognize the practice...

And I also understand that heterosexual weddings can be performed without involvement from any religion... my mother and father had a 'civil union'...

[The Senator]

The government cannot force any religion to do something that goes against their teachings. Such action or actions would violate the free exercise clause in the first amendment.

The various religions can choose to administer same-sex weddings or not, just like heterosexual weddings. However, some heterosexual weddings are done with no involvement from any religion. So the idea that gay weddings will weaken heterosexual marriages and any religion is moot.

That's pretty much what I've been getting at... I just don't want to see a bunch of super-liberals charging into the streets demanding the Catholic Church to recognize gay marriage when they are perfectly within their rights not to recognize the practice...

And I also understand that heterosexual weddings can be performed without involvement from any religion... my mother and father had a 'civil union'...

[The Senator]

But no one is saying they have to :huh:

I didn't say that anyone was saying that they have to (on these boards) :huh:

But I know people within the gay community who would protest certain religions because they won't recognize gay marriage... which I feel is idiotic since religions are private entities which can abide by their own rules...

[The Senator]

But no one is saying they have to :huh:

I didn't say that anyone was saying that they have to (on these boards) :huh:

But I know people within the gay community who would protest certain religions because they won't recognize gay marriage... which I feel is idiotic since religions are private entities which can abide by their own rules...

[The Senator]

But no one is saying they have to :huh:

I didn't say that anyone was saying that they have to (on these boards) :huh:

But I know people within the gay community who would protest certain religions because they won't recognize gay marriage... which I feel is idiotic since religions are private entities which can abide by their own rules...

[spideyboy_1111]

There are some people who have little respect for a church's right to live by its own doctrine. For example, I do not feel Baptists should have to perform a gay marriage ceremony, when the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage. There are religious institutions which recognize gay marriage. I'm simply saying that if gay marriage becomes legal, churches shouldn't have to recognize it if their faith advises against it.

here's the thing... you're bringing up something that is what i'm assuming a fear from many religious people who are against this... the thing is though... the fear is kinda ignorant... why keep bringing it up? no one at all is talking about forcing religions to do anything. That isn't part of the issue at all

[spideyboy_1111]

There are some people who have little respect for a church's right to live by its own doctrine. For example, I do not feel Baptists should have to perform a gay marriage ceremony, when the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage. There are religious institutions which recognize gay marriage. I'm simply saying that if gay marriage becomes legal, churches shouldn't have to recognize it if their faith advises against it.

here's the thing... you're bringing up something that is what i'm assuming a fear from many religious people who are against this... the thing is though... the fear is kinda ignorant... why keep bringing it up? no one at all is talking about forcing religions to do anything. That isn't part of the issue at all

[spideyboy_1111]

There are some people who have little respect for a church's right to live by its own doctrine. For example, I do not feel Baptists should have to perform a gay marriage ceremony, when the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage. There are religious institutions which recognize gay marriage. I'm simply saying that if gay marriage becomes legal, churches shouldn't have to recognize it if their faith advises against it.

here's the thing... you're bringing up something that is what i'm assuming a fear from many religious people who are against this... the thing is though... the fear is kinda ignorant... why keep bringing it up? no one at all is talking about forcing religions to do anything. That isn't part of the issue at all

[spideyboy_1111]

I didn't say that anyone was saying that they have to (on these boards) :huh:

But I know people within the gay community who would protest certain religions because they won't recognize gay marriage... which I feel is idiotic since religions are private entities which can abide by their own rules...

dude, if anyones doing that, its an INCREDIBLY small majority... yeah some gay guys for some damn reason are still a religion that looks down on our kind (not sure why the hell anyone would want to persecute themselves by doing so... but thats there thing) and yeah im sure they'd like to get married under there own religion, but majority of those arn't even fighting it. Most religious gays go to gay accepting churches.

[spideyboy_1111]

I didn't say that anyone was saying that they have to (on these boards) :huh:

But I know people within the gay community who would protest certain religions because they won't recognize gay marriage... which I feel is idiotic since religions are private entities which can abide by their own rules...

dude, if anyones doing that, its an INCREDIBLY small majority... yeah some gay guys for some damn reason are still a religion that looks down on our kind (not sure why the hell anyone would want to persecute themselves by doing so... but thats there thing) and yeah im sure they'd like to get married under there own religion, but majority of those arn't even fighting it. Most religious gays go to gay accepting churches.

[spideyboy_1111]

I didn't say that anyone was saying that they have to (on these boards) :huh:

But I know people within the gay community who would protest certain religions because they won't recognize gay marriage... which I feel is idiotic since religions are private entities which can abide by their own rules...

dude, if anyones doing that, its an INCREDIBLY small majority... yeah some gay guys for some damn reason are still a religion that looks down on our kind (not sure why the hell anyone would want to persecute themselves by doing so... but thats there thing) and yeah im sure they'd like to get married under there own religion, but majority of those arn't even fighting it. Most religious gays go to gay accepting churches.

[The Senator]

here's the thing... you're bringing up something that is what i'm assuming a fear from many religious people who are against this... the thing is though... the fear is kinda ignorant... why keep bringing it up? no one at all is talking about forcing religions to do anything. That isn't part of the issue at all

I'm just saying that religious institutions should be allowed to abide by their own rules. I don't think gay folks should complain if a church refuses to marry them, considering they can get married elsewhere.

[The Senator]

here's the thing... you're bringing up something that is what i'm assuming a fear from many religious people who are against this... the thing is though... the fear is kinda ignorant... why keep bringing it up? no one at all is talking about forcing religions to do anything. That isn't part of the issue at all

I'm just saying that religious institutions should be allowed to abide by their own rules. I don't think gay folks should complain if a church refuses to marry them, considering they can get married elsewhere.

[The Senator]

here's the thing... you're bringing up something that is what i'm assuming a fear from many religious people who are against this... the thing is though... the fear is kinda ignorant... why keep bringing it up? no one at all is talking about forcing religions to do anything. That isn't part of the issue at all

I'm just saying that religious institutions should be allowed to abide by their own rules. I don't think gay folks should complain if a church refuses to marry them, considering they can get married elsewhere.

[The Senator]

dude, if anyones doing that, its an INCREDIBLY small majority... yeah some gay guys for some damn reason are still a religion that looks down on our kind (not sure why the hell anyone would want to persecute themselves by doing so... but thats there thing) and yeah im sure they'd like to get married under there own religion, but majority of those arn't even fighting it. Most religious gays go to gay accepting churches.

Again, I'm not saying that everyone in the GLBT community is going to protest every church because that church refuses to recognize gay marriage. But I have several gay friends who seem to think that religious institutions should recognize gay marriage, when they rightfully do not have to.

For example, someone I know was angry that the HRC had a faith outreach program because several faiths refuse to recognize gay rights... I found that stupid considering several other faiths and denominations recognize gay rights... granted not everyone thinks that way, but there are people who do...

[The Senator]

dude, if anyones doing that, its an INCREDIBLY small majority... yeah some gay guys for some damn reason are still a religion that looks down on our kind (not sure why the hell anyone would want to persecute themselves by doing so... but thats there thing) and yeah im sure they'd like to get married under there own religion, but majority of those arn't even fighting it. Most religious gays go to gay accepting churches.

Again, I'm not saying that everyone in the GLBT community is going to protest every church because that church refuses to recognize gay marriage. But I have several gay friends who seem to think that religious institutions should recognize gay marriage, when they rightfully do not have to.

For example, someone I know was angry that the HRC had a faith outreach program because several faiths refuse to recognize gay rights... I found that stupid considering several other faiths and denominations recognize gay rights... granted not everyone thinks that way, but there are people who do...

[The Senator]

dude, if anyones doing that, its an INCREDIBLY small majority... yeah some gay guys for some damn reason are still a religion that looks down on our kind (not sure why the hell anyone would want to persecute themselves by doing so... but thats there thing) and yeah im sure they'd like to get married under there own religion, but majority of those arn't even fighting it. Most religious gays go to gay accepting churches.

Again, I'm not saying that everyone in the GLBT community is going to protest every church because that church refuses to recognize gay marriage. But I have several gay friends who seem to think that religious institutions should recognize gay marriage, when they rightfully do not have to.

For example, someone I know was angry that the HRC had a faith outreach program because several faiths refuse to recognize gay rights... I found that stupid considering several other faiths and denominations recognize gay rights... granted not everyone thinks that way, but there are people who do...

[The Senator]

I am not sure on the signatures they are getting (though you can be sure this court case will increase the urgency). The news reports I heard made it sound like the ballot was a sure thing.

Yeah, it's pretty close to getting on the ballot. According to opinion polling, the results will be close too, as 51% of voters said in 2007 that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD90N0SLG0

[The Senator]

I am not sure on the signatures they are getting (though you can be sure this court case will increase the urgency). The news reports I heard made it sound like the ballot was a sure thing.

Yeah, it's pretty close to getting on the ballot. According to opinion polling, the results will be close too, as 51% of voters said in 2007 that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD90N0SLG0

[The Senator]

I am not sure on the signatures they are getting (though you can be sure this court case will increase the urgency). The news reports I heard made it sound like the ballot was a sure thing.

Yeah, it's pretty close to getting on the ballot. According to opinion polling, the results will be close too, as 51% of voters said in 2007 that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD90N0SLG0

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm just saying that religious institutions should be allowed to abide by their own rules. I don't think gay folks should complain if a church refuses to marry them, considering they can get married elsewhere.

but your still bringing up a very very small group and making a huge issue out of it, when its not at any risk of reforming. No matter how many protest the church still doesn't have to change. Hell it's only been a few decades since the Catholic Church openly acknowledged the world being round in there books, seriously i'm not joking, its only been 20-30 years

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm just saying that religious institutions should be allowed to abide by their own rules. I don't think gay folks should complain if a church refuses to marry them, considering they can get married elsewhere.

but your still bringing up a very very small group and making a huge issue out of it, when its not at any risk of reforming. No matter how many protest the church still doesn't have to change. Hell it's only been a few decades since the Catholic Church openly acknowledged the world being round in there books, seriously i'm not joking, its only been 20-30 years

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm just saying that religious institutions should be allowed to abide by their own rules. I don't think gay folks should complain if a church refuses to marry them, considering they can get married elsewhere.

but your still bringing up a very very small group and making a huge issue out of it, when its not at any risk of reforming. No matter how many protest the church still doesn't have to change. Hell it's only been a few decades since the Catholic Church openly acknowledged the world being round in there books, seriously i'm not joking, its only been 20-30 years

[BlackLantern]

I think what jman is getting at is that churches can come off looking like the villains because they want to defend their doctrines....

[BlackLantern]

I think what jman is getting at is that churches can come off looking like the villains because they want to defend their doctrines....

[BlackLantern]

I think what jman is getting at is that churches can come off looking like the villains because they want to defend their doctrines....

[The Senator]

but your still bringing up a very very small group and making a huge issue out of it, when its not at any risk of reforming. No matter how many protest the church still doesn't have to change.

I'm not really making a huge issue out of it. Several posters have felt the need to reply to an observation I made, and I've had to defend my beliefs on the matter. I haven't really said anything other than religions shouldn't be forced to recognize gay marriage or that I find it stupid that some people protest certain churches' feelings on the matter.

[The Senator]

but your still bringing up a very very small group and making a huge issue out of it, when its not at any risk of reforming. No matter how many protest the church still doesn't have to change.

I'm not really making a huge issue out of it. Several posters have felt the need to reply to an observation I made, and I've had to defend my beliefs on the matter. I haven't really said anything other than religions shouldn't be forced to recognize gay marriage or that I find it stupid that some people protest certain churches' feelings on the matter.

[The Senator]

but your still bringing up a very very small group and making a huge issue out of it, when its not at any risk of reforming. No matter how many protest the church still doesn't have to change.

I'm not really making a huge issue out of it. Several posters have felt the need to reply to an observation I made, and I've had to defend my beliefs on the matter. I haven't really said anything other than religions shouldn't be forced to recognize gay marriage or that I find it stupid that some people protest certain churches' feelings on the matter.

[The Senator]

I think what jman is getting at is that churches can come off looking like the villains because they want to defend their doctrines....

That's about it really. They are within their rights as a private institution to make their own rules about things. If they want to recognize gay marriage, fine. But if they don't, they shouldn't have to, contrary to what some people think.

[The Senator]

I think what jman is getting at is that churches can come off looking like the villains because they want to defend their doctrines....

That's about it really. They are within their rights as a private institution to make their own rules about things. If they want to recognize gay marriage, fine. But if they don't, they shouldn't have to, contrary to what some people think.

[The Senator]

I think what jman is getting at is that churches can come off looking like the villains because they want to defend their doctrines....

That's about it really. They are within their rights as a private institution to make their own rules about things. If they want to recognize gay marriage, fine. But if they don't, they shouldn't have to, contrary to what some people think.

[BlackLantern]

I can agree with that....that whole freedom of religion thing

[BlackLantern]

I can agree with that....that whole freedom of religion thing

[BlackLantern]

I can agree with that....that whole freedom of religion thing

[spideyboy_1111]

Again, I'm not saying that everyone in the GLBT community is going to protest every church because that church refuses to recognize gay marriage. But I have several gay friends who seem to think that religious institutions should recognize gay marriage, when they rightfully do not have to.

For example, someone I know was angry that the HRC had a faith outreach program because several faiths refuse to recognize gay rights... I found that stupid considering several other faiths and denominations recognize gay rights... granted not everyone thinks that way, but there are people who do...

most of your friends are just angry with religion (which they have a right to feel that way towards) they seem to be more angry with religion and not fully understanding the concept of it all. There are alot of gays who have given up religion or persued others that are tolerant. and i don't blame them. there are churches that are accepting of gays maybe your friends should look into them? the problem with everything is many people follow religion so blindly, your friends probably grew up in this religion and there too afraid of changing there religion and are just bitter at it.

either way your still bringing up something that most likely wont happen and if it did... it could be 100 or so years before they do. Religions are not at any risk of change with the pass of the government allowing gay marriage

[spideyboy_1111]

Again, I'm not saying that everyone in the GLBT community is going to protest every church because that church refuses to recognize gay marriage. But I have several gay friends who seem to think that religious institutions should recognize gay marriage, when they rightfully do not have to.

For example, someone I know was angry that the HRC had a faith outreach program because several faiths refuse to recognize gay rights... I found that stupid considering several other faiths and denominations recognize gay rights... granted not everyone thinks that way, but there are people who do...

most of your friends are just angry with religion (which they have a right to feel that way towards) they seem to be more angry with religion and not fully understanding the concept of it all. There are alot of gays who have given up religion or persued others that are tolerant. and i don't blame them. there are churches that are accepting of gays maybe your friends should look into them? the problem with everything is many people follow religion so blindly, your friends probably grew up in this religion and there too afraid of changing there religion and are just bitter at it.

either way your still bringing up something that most likely wont happen and if it did... it could be 100 or so years before they do. Religions are not at any risk of change with the pass of the government allowing gay marriage

[spideyboy_1111]

Again, I'm not saying that everyone in the GLBT community is going to protest every church because that church refuses to recognize gay marriage. But I have several gay friends who seem to think that religious institutions should recognize gay marriage, when they rightfully do not have to.

For example, someone I know was angry that the HRC had a faith outreach program because several faiths refuse to recognize gay rights... I found that stupid considering several other faiths and denominations recognize gay rights... granted not everyone thinks that way, but there are people who do...

most of your friends are just angry with religion (which they have a right to feel that way towards) they seem to be more angry with religion and not fully understanding the concept of it all. There are alot of gays who have given up religion or persued others that are tolerant. and i don't blame them. there are churches that are accepting of gays maybe your friends should look into them? the problem with everything is many people follow religion so blindly, your friends probably grew up in this religion and there too afraid of changing there religion and are just bitter at it.

either way your still bringing up something that most likely wont happen and if it did... it could be 100 or so years before they do. Religions are not at any risk of change with the pass of the government allowing gay marriage

[spideyboy_1111]

That's about it really. They are within their rights as a private institution to make their own rules about things. If they want to recognize gay marriage, fine. But if they don't, they shouldn't have to, contrary to what some people think.

the reason religions look bad is simple... they don't make sense. Jesus Christ was a liberal who defied his government to do good, today the word liberal is typically used in a bad way. Jesus Christ also was very accepting, above all he preached love for one another. To say Jesus would persecute homosexuality because a book written by man says so... is ridiculous. Jesus said he wanted no structures built in his name (o wait christians seem to have ignored that one too) I wont bash religions. Just people who follow it blindly and refuse to question anything especially when the Church decides what is taught and what is rewritten.

[spideyboy_1111]

That's about it really. They are within their rights as a private institution to make their own rules about things. If they want to recognize gay marriage, fine. But if they don't, they shouldn't have to, contrary to what some people think.

the reason religions look bad is simple... they don't make sense. Jesus Christ was a liberal who defied his government to do good, today the word liberal is typically used in a bad way. Jesus Christ also was very accepting, above all he preached love for one another. To say Jesus would persecute homosexuality because a book written by man says so... is ridiculous. Jesus said he wanted no structures built in his name (o wait christians seem to have ignored that one too) I wont bash religions. Just people who follow it blindly and refuse to question anything especially when the Church decides what is taught and what is rewritten.

[spideyboy_1111]

That's about it really. They are within their rights as a private institution to make their own rules about things. If they want to recognize gay marriage, fine. But if they don't, they shouldn't have to, contrary to what some people think.

the reason religions look bad is simple... they don't make sense. Jesus Christ was a liberal who defied his government to do good, today the word liberal is typically used in a bad way. Jesus Christ also was very accepting, above all he preached love for one another. To say Jesus would persecute homosexuality because a book written by man says so... is ridiculous. Jesus said he wanted no structures built in his name (o wait christians seem to have ignored that one too) I wont bash religions. Just people who follow it blindly and refuse to question anything especially when the Church decides what is taught and what is rewritten.

[The Senator]

most of your friends are just angry with religion (which they have a right to feel that way towards) they seem to be more angry with religion and not fully understanding the concept of it all.

Or they're angry that the churches don't recognize gay rights. They have no noticeable qualms with religion in general-- just the fact that some of these churches don't recognize gay rights.

There are alot of gays who have given up religion or persued others that are tolerant. and i don't blame them. there are churches that are accepting of gays maybe your friends should look into them? the problem with everything is many people follow religion so blindly, your friends probably grew up in this religion and there too afraid of changing there religion and are just bitter at it.

This isn't about my friends' personal quest for faith. Most of them don't believe in religion. These friends are gay activists who believe that all religions should recognize gay rights. They are perfectly aware as to which religions are gay friendly and which ones are not.

[The Senator]

most of your friends are just angry with religion (which they have a right to feel that way towards) they seem to be more angry with religion and not fully understanding the concept of it all.

Or they're angry that the churches don't recognize gay rights. They have no noticeable qualms with religion in general-- just the fact that some of these churches don't recognize gay rights.

There are alot of gays who have given up religion or persued others that are tolerant. and i don't blame them. there are churches that are accepting of gays maybe your friends should look into them? the problem with everything is many people follow religion so blindly, your friends probably grew up in this religion and there too afraid of changing there religion and are just bitter at it.

This isn't about my friends' personal quest for faith. Most of them don't believe in religion. These friends are gay activists who believe that all religions should recognize gay rights. They are perfectly aware as to which religions are gay friendly and which ones are not.

[The Senator]

most of your friends are just angry with religion (which they have a right to feel that way towards) they seem to be more angry with religion and not fully understanding the concept of it all.

Or they're angry that the churches don't recognize gay rights. They have no noticeable qualms with religion in general-- just the fact that some of these churches don't recognize gay rights.

There are alot of gays who have given up religion or persued others that are tolerant. and i don't blame them. there are churches that are accepting of gays maybe your friends should look into them? the problem with everything is many people follow religion so blindly, your friends probably grew up in this religion and there too afraid of changing there religion and are just bitter at it.

This isn't about my friends' personal quest for faith. Most of them don't believe in religion. These friends are gay activists who believe that all religions should recognize gay rights. They are perfectly aware as to which religions are gay friendly and which ones are not.

[The Senator]

the reason religions look bad is simple... they don't make sense. Jesus Christ was a liberal who defied his government to do good, today the word liberal is typically used in a bad way. Jesus Christ also was very accepting, above all he preached love for one another. To say Jesus would persecute homosexuality because a book written by man says so... is ridiculous. Jesus said he wanted no structures built in his name (o wait christians seem to have ignored that one too) I wont bash religions. Just people who follow it blindly and refuse to question anything especially when the Church decides what is taught and what is rewritten.

If that's how some folks see Christ, then fine. They should practice under a faith which recognizes the rights of gays, or not practice under a certain denomination. But it is up to each church as a private entity to decide how the universe works... yeah, it sounds stupid, but they are within their own rights to come up with their own rules... ultimately it doesn't matter what the followers of a certain faith believe or whether they question anything at all... they are within their Constitutional rights to act that way.

But let's not turn this into a debate on religion, there are four million other threads on that subject in the Community Forum...

[The Senator]

the reason religions look bad is simple... they don't make sense. Jesus Christ was a liberal who defied his government to do good, today the word liberal is typically used in a bad way. Jesus Christ also was very accepting, above all he preached love for one another. To say Jesus would persecute homosexuality because a book written by man says so... is ridiculous. Jesus said he wanted no structures built in his name (o wait christians seem to have ignored that one too) I wont bash religions. Just people who follow it blindly and refuse to question anything especially when the Church decides what is taught and what is rewritten.

If that's how some folks see Christ, then fine. They should practice under a faith which recognizes the rights of gays, or not practice under a certain denomination. But it is up to each church as a private entity to decide how the universe works... yeah, it sounds stupid, but they are within their own rights to come up with their own rules... ultimately it doesn't matter what the followers of a certain faith believe or whether they question anything at all... they are within their Constitutional rights to act that way.

But let's not turn this into a debate on religion, there are four million other threads on that subject in the Community Forum...

[The Senator]

the reason religions look bad is simple... they don't make sense. Jesus Christ was a liberal who defied his government to do good, today the word liberal is typically used in a bad way. Jesus Christ also was very accepting, above all he preached love for one another. To say Jesus would persecute homosexuality because a book written by man says so... is ridiculous. Jesus said he wanted no structures built in his name (o wait christians seem to have ignored that one too) I wont bash religions. Just people who follow it blindly and refuse to question anything especially when the Church decides what is taught and what is rewritten.

If that's how some folks see Christ, then fine. They should practice under a faith which recognizes the rights of gays, or not practice under a certain denomination. But it is up to each church as a private entity to decide how the universe works... yeah, it sounds stupid, but they are within their own rights to come up with their own rules... ultimately it doesn't matter what the followers of a certain faith believe or whether they question anything at all... they are within their Constitutional rights to act that way.

But let's not turn this into a debate on religion, there are four million other threads on that subject in the Community Forum...

[spideyboy_1111]

Or they're angry that the churches don't recognize gay rights. They have no noticeable qualms with religion in general-- just the fact that some of these churches don't recognize gay rights.



This isn't about my friends' personal quest for faith. Most of them don't believe in God. These friends are gay activists who believe that all religions should recognize gay rights. They are perfectly aware as to which religions are gay friendly and which ones are not.

well it's a very hard topic, i mean i believe all people and all organizations should be accepting of everyone, and i think major religions should be more accepting especially since these days it seems like people are becoming more accepting. Right now it's fighting a losing battle and religion is more at risk in this day in age of "not keeping up with the times" in general... i feel its having much less control then it use to, people have caught on to some lies of the churches, Catholics in general have had many eye opening experiences, i know my grandmother and grandfather were devout catholics and have become much less in there later years due to the way the church went about the priest scandals. But your still worried about a subject that really isnt a part of any agenda or plan.. sure churches should be more accepting, but no one its forcing them to be, nor can anyone

[spideyboy_1111]

Or they're angry that the churches don't recognize gay rights. They have no noticeable qualms with religion in general-- just the fact that some of these churches don't recognize gay rights.



This isn't about my friends' personal quest for faith. Most of them don't believe in God. These friends are gay activists who believe that all religions should recognize gay rights. They are perfectly aware as to which religions are gay friendly and which ones are not.

well it's a very hard topic, i mean i believe all people and all organizations should be accepting of everyone, and i think major religions should be more accepting especially since these days it seems like people are becoming more accepting. Right now it's fighting a losing battle and religion is more at risk in this day in age of "not keeping up with the times" in general... i feel its having much less control then it use to, people have caught on to some lies of the churches, Catholics in general have had many eye opening experiences, i know my grandmother and grandfather were devout catholics and have become much less in there later years due to the way the church went about the priest scandals. But your still worried about a subject that really isnt a part of any agenda or plan.. sure churches should be more accepting, but no one its forcing them to be, nor can anyone

[spideyboy_1111]

Or they're angry that the churches don't recognize gay rights. They have no noticeable qualms with religion in general-- just the fact that some of these churches don't recognize gay rights.



This isn't about my friends' personal quest for faith. Most of them don't believe in God. These friends are gay activists who believe that all religions should recognize gay rights. They are perfectly aware as to which religions are gay friendly and which ones are not.

well it's a very hard topic, i mean i believe all people and all organizations should be accepting of everyone, and i think major religions should be more accepting especially since these days it seems like people are becoming more accepting. Right now it's fighting a losing battle and religion is more at risk in this day in age of "not keeping up with the times" in general... i feel its having much less control then it use to, people have caught on to some lies of the churches, Catholics in general have had many eye opening experiences, i know my grandmother and grandfather were devout catholics and have become much less in there later years due to the way the church went about the priest scandals. But your still worried about a subject that really isnt a part of any agenda or plan.. sure churches should be more accepting, but no one its forcing them to be, nor can anyone

[spideyboy_1111]

If that's how some folks see Christ, then fine. They should practice under a faith which recognizes the rights of gays, or not practice under a certain denomination. But it is up to each church as a private entity to decide how the universe works... yeah, it sounds stupid, but they are within their own rights to come up with their own rules... ultimately it doesn't matter what the followers of a certain faith believe or whether they question anything at all... they are within their Constitutional rights to act that way.

But let's not turn this into a debate on religion, there are four million other threads on that subject in the Community Forum...

again no one can force a church into anything its 100% illegal to and will always be.

[spideyboy_1111]

If that's how some folks see Christ, then fine. They should practice under a faith which recognizes the rights of gays, or not practice under a certain denomination. But it is up to each church as a private entity to decide how the universe works... yeah, it sounds stupid, but they are within their own rights to come up with their own rules... ultimately it doesn't matter what the followers of a certain faith believe or whether they question anything at all... they are within their Constitutional rights to act that way.

But let's not turn this into a debate on religion, there are four million other threads on that subject in the Community Forum...

again no one can force a church into anything its 100% illegal to and will always be.

[spideyboy_1111]

If that's how some folks see Christ, then fine. They should practice under a faith which recognizes the rights of gays, or not practice under a certain denomination. But it is up to each church as a private entity to decide how the universe works... yeah, it sounds stupid, but they are within their own rights to come up with their own rules... ultimately it doesn't matter what the followers of a certain faith believe or whether they question anything at all... they are within their Constitutional rights to act that way.

But let's not turn this into a debate on religion, there are four million other threads on that subject in the Community Forum...

again no one can force a church into anything its 100% illegal to and will always be.

[BlackLantern]

well to get back on topic....jman...will you and your SO be hopping off to sunny CA to get hitched?...

[BlackLantern]

well to get back on topic....jman...will you and your SO be hopping off to sunny CA to get hitched?...

[BlackLantern]

well to get back on topic....jman...will you and your SO be hopping off to sunny CA to get hitched?...

[The Senator]

well it's a very hard topic, i mean i believe all people and all organizations should be accepting of everyone, and i think major religions should be more accepting especially since these days it seems like people are becoming more accepting. Right now it's fighting a losing battle and religion is more at risk in this day in age of "not keeping up with the times" in general... i feel its having much less control then it use to, people have caught on to some lies of the churches, Catholics in general have had many eye opening experiences, i know my grandmother and grandfather were devout catholics and have become much less in there later years due to the way the church went about the priest scandals. But your still worried about a subject that really isnt a part of any agenda or plan.. sure churches should be more accepting, but no one its forcing them to be, nor can anyone

I agree with this, but again, these churches have the ability to decide things for themselves.

[The Senator]

well it's a very hard topic, i mean i believe all people and all organizations should be accepting of everyone, and i think major religions should be more accepting especially since these days it seems like people are becoming more accepting. Right now it's fighting a losing battle and religion is more at risk in this day in age of "not keeping up with the times" in general... i feel its having much less control then it use to, people have caught on to some lies of the churches, Catholics in general have had many eye opening experiences, i know my grandmother and grandfather were devout catholics and have become much less in there later years due to the way the church went about the priest scandals. But your still worried about a subject that really isnt a part of any agenda or plan.. sure churches should be more accepting, but no one its forcing them to be, nor can anyone

I agree with this, but again, these churches have the ability to decide things for themselves.

[The Senator]

well it's a very hard topic, i mean i believe all people and all organizations should be accepting of everyone, and i think major religions should be more accepting especially since these days it seems like people are becoming more accepting. Right now it's fighting a losing battle and religion is more at risk in this day in age of "not keeping up with the times" in general... i feel its having much less control then it use to, people have caught on to some lies of the churches, Catholics in general have had many eye opening experiences, i know my grandmother and grandfather were devout catholics and have become much less in there later years due to the way the church went about the priest scandals. But your still worried about a subject that really isnt a part of any agenda or plan.. sure churches should be more accepting, but no one its forcing them to be, nor can anyone

I agree with this, but again, these churches have the ability to decide things for themselves.

[spideyboy_1111]

i so need a bf.... lol

[spideyboy_1111]

i so need a bf.... lol

[spideyboy_1111]

i so need a bf.... lol

[spideyboy_1111]

I agree with this, but again, these churches have the ability to decide things for themselves.

lol and again there not at any threat... people can believe what they wish, and no matter how many gay activists think religions should acknowledge gay marriage, it's just an opinion, and they cant do anything about it.

[spideyboy_1111]

I agree with this, but again, these churches have the ability to decide things for themselves.

lol and again there not at any threat... people can believe what they wish, and no matter how many gay activists think religions should acknowledge gay marriage, it's just an opinion, and they cant do anything about it.

[spideyboy_1111]

I agree with this, but again, these churches have the ability to decide things for themselves.

lol and again there not at any threat... people can believe what they wish, and no matter how many gay activists think religions should acknowledge gay marriage, it's just an opinion, and they cant do anything about it.

[The Senator]

well to get back on topic....jman...will you and your SO be hopping off to sunny CA to get hitched?...

We were actually looking at moving to San Diego, LA or Sacramento in a few years when we're done with school... this decision obviously makes both options more appealing :word:

[The Senator]

well to get back on topic....jman...will you and your SO be hopping off to sunny CA to get hitched?...

We were actually looking at moving to San Diego, LA or Sacramento in a few years when we're done with school... this decision obviously makes both options more appealing :word:

[The Senator]

well to get back on topic....jman...will you and your SO be hopping off to sunny CA to get hitched?...

We were actually looking at moving to San Diego, LA or Sacramento in a few years when we're done with school... this decision obviously makes both options more appealing :word:

[spideyboy_1111]

We were actually looking at moving to San Diego, LA or Sacramento in a few years when we're done with school... this decision obviously makes both options more appealing :word:

san diego is a great choice.. its pretty, and lots of sun, LA is alright, i live there... but the people are *******s. always something fun going on so thats the trade off....

san fran is great too but has the most earthquakes... haha so im not sure if i wanna live up there :-P

[The Senator]

lol and again there not at any threat... people can believe what they wish, and no matter how many gay activists think religions should acknowledge gay marriage, it's just an opinion, and they cant do anything about it.

Yep, it's just an opinion, but if you get enough people to agree with that opinion, they can have considerable influence.

[spideyboy_1111]

We were actually looking at moving to San Diego, LA or Sacramento in a few years when we're done with school... this decision obviously makes both options more appealing :word:

san diego is a great choice.. its pretty, and lots of sun, LA is alright, i live there... but the people are *******s. always something fun going on so thats the trade off....

san fran is great too but has the most earthquakes... haha so im not sure if i wanna live up there :-P

[The Senator]

lol and again there not at any threat... people can believe what they wish, and no matter how many gay activists think religions should acknowledge gay marriage, it's just an opinion, and they cant do anything about it.

Yep, it's just an opinion, but if you get enough people to agree with that opinion, they can have considerable influence.

[spideyboy_1111]

We were actually looking at moving to San Diego, LA or Sacramento in a few years when we're done with school... this decision obviously makes both options more appealing :word:

san diego is a great choice.. its pretty, and lots of sun, LA is alright, i live there... but the people are *******s. always something fun going on so thats the trade off....

san fran is great too but has the most earthquakes... haha so im not sure if i wanna live up there :-P

[The Senator]

lol and again there not at any threat... people can believe what they wish, and no matter how many gay activists think religions should acknowledge gay marriage, it's just an opinion, and they cant do anything about it.

Yep, it's just an opinion, but if you get enough people to agree with that opinion, they can have considerable influence.

[BlackLantern]

I spent 2 years in SD when I was in the USN....its a fantastic city to be in...as I will be visiting for SDCC this year....LA is dirty

[BlackLantern]

I spent 2 years in SD when I was in the USN....its a fantastic city to be in...as I will be visiting for SDCC this year....LA is dirty

[BlackLantern]

I spent 2 years in SD when I was in the USN....its a fantastic city to be in...as I will be visiting for SDCC this year....LA is dirty

[spideyboy_1111]

Yep, it's just an opinion, but if you get enough people to agree with that opinion, they can have considerable influence.

influence or not... the church has more power then its followers. i cant really think of anything but Time, thats changed a church.... they eventually through alot of time will change.. but it's usually decades after there followers have

[spideyboy_1111]

Yep, it's just an opinion, but if you get enough people to agree with that opinion, they can have considerable influence.

influence or not... the church has more power then its followers. i cant really think of anything but Time, thats changed a church.... they eventually through alot of time will change.. but it's usually decades after there followers have

[spideyboy_1111]

Yep, it's just an opinion, but if you get enough people to agree with that opinion, they can have considerable influence.

influence or not... the church has more power then its followers. i cant really think of anything but Time, thats changed a church.... they eventually through alot of time will change.. but it's usually decades after there followers have

[The Senator]

san diego is a great choice.. its pretty, and lots of sun, LA is alright, i live there... but the people are *******s. always something fun going on so thats the trade off....

san fran is great too but has the most earthquakes... haha so im not sure if i wanna live up there :-P

Well we have to go where there's political work... Sacramento would be the best option for us, obviously, but there are at least two, maybe three years left before we can seriously consider leaving DC... where we end up depends on where the work is.

[The Senator]

san diego is a great choice.. its pretty, and lots of sun, LA is alright, i live there... but the people are *******s. always something fun going on so thats the trade off....

san fran is great too but has the most earthquakes... haha so im not sure if i wanna live up there :-P

Well we have to go where there's political work... Sacramento would be the best option for us, obviously, but there are at least two, maybe three years left before we can seriously consider leaving DC... where we end up depends on where the work is.

[The Senator]

san diego is a great choice.. its pretty, and lots of sun, LA is alright, i live there... but the people are *******s. always something fun going on so thats the trade off....

san fran is great too but has the most earthquakes... haha so im not sure if i wanna live up there :-P

Well we have to go where there's political work... Sacramento would be the best option for us, obviously, but there are at least two, maybe three years left before we can seriously consider leaving DC... where we end up depends on where the work is.

[The Senator]

I spent 2 years in SD when I was in the USN....its a fantastic city to be in...as I will be visiting for SDCC this year....LA is dirty

Hmmm... when I went to LA, I loved it... I haven't been to San Diego yet, but the boyfriend has... chances are, SD will trump LA, but Sacramento will trump all other choices... IF we end up in California at all...

[The Senator]

I spent 2 years in SD when I was in the USN....its a fantastic city to be in...as I will be visiting for SDCC this year....LA is dirty

Hmmm... when I went to LA, I loved it... I haven't been to San Diego yet, but the boyfriend has... chances are, SD will trump LA, but Sacramento will trump all other choices... IF we end up in California at all...

[The Senator]

I spent 2 years in SD when I was in the USN....its a fantastic city to be in...as I will be visiting for SDCC this year....LA is dirty

Hmmm... when I went to LA, I loved it... I haven't been to San Diego yet, but the boyfriend has... chances are, SD will trump LA, but Sacramento will trump all other choices... IF we end up in California at all...

[spideyboy_1111]

I spent 2 years in SD when I was in the USN....its a fantastic city to be in...as I will be visiting for SDCC this year....LA is dirty

ill be at SDCC this year as well...

LA it depends where your at.... West LA is pretty nice, as is the beach area of Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan, Santa Monica, and Malibu... Hollywood and east of it, are pretty dirty... I love West LA though.... you get a nice breeze and its better kept up.

[spideyboy_1111]

I spent 2 years in SD when I was in the USN....its a fantastic city to be in...as I will be visiting for SDCC this year....LA is dirty

ill be at SDCC this year as well...

LA it depends where your at.... West LA is pretty nice, as is the beach area of Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan, Santa Monica, and Malibu... Hollywood and east of it, are pretty dirty... I love West LA though.... you get a nice breeze and its better kept up.

[spideyboy_1111]

I spent 2 years in SD when I was in the USN....its a fantastic city to be in...as I will be visiting for SDCC this year....LA is dirty

ill be at SDCC this year as well...

LA it depends where your at.... West LA is pretty nice, as is the beach area of Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan, Santa Monica, and Malibu... Hollywood and east of it, are pretty dirty... I love West LA though.... you get a nice breeze and its better kept up.

[spideyboy_1111]

Hmmm... when I went to LA, I loved it... I haven't been to San Diego yet, but the boyfriend has... chances are, SD will trump LA, but Sacramento will trump all other choices... IF we end up in California at all...

eww... sac is not fun :(

[spideyboy_1111]

Hmmm... when I went to LA, I loved it... I haven't been to San Diego yet, but the boyfriend has... chances are, SD will trump LA, but Sacramento will trump all other choices... IF we end up in California at all...

eww... sac is not fun :(

[spideyboy_1111]

Hmmm... when I went to LA, I loved it... I haven't been to San Diego yet, but the boyfriend has... chances are, SD will trump LA, but Sacramento will trump all other choices... IF we end up in California at all...

eww... sac is not fun :(

[The Senator]

eww... sac is not fun :(

San Francisco isn't all that far away from Sacramento, so we would probably live in between both cities and figure out how to commute to work. But again, this is years away right now, and California isn't really at the top of my "places I want to live" list just yet.

[The Senator]

eww... sac is not fun :(

San Francisco isn't all that far away from Sacramento, so we would probably live in between both cities and figure out how to commute to work. But again, this is years away right now, and California isn't really at the top of my "places I want to live" list just yet.

[The Senator]

eww... sac is not fun :(

San Francisco isn't all that far away from Sacramento, so we would probably live in between both cities and figure out how to commute to work. But again, this is years away right now, and California isn't really at the top of my "places I want to live" list just yet.

[spideyboy_1111]

what kinda political work do you both do?

[spideyboy_1111]

what kinda political work do you both do?

[spideyboy_1111]

what kinda political work do you both do?

[The Senator]

what kinda political work do you both do?

I'm a student now, but I've campaigned for many politicians (and interned for two others) and I am actively involved in GLBT activism. He's involved with political action committees.

[The Senator]

what kinda political work do you both do?

I'm a student now, but I've campaigned for many politicians (and interned for two others) and I am actively involved in GLBT activism. He's involved with political action committees.

[The Senator]

what kinda political work do you both do?

I'm a student now, but I've campaigned for many politicians (and interned for two others) and I am actively involved in GLBT activism. He's involved with political action committees.

[Marx]

I'm a student now, but I've campaigned for many politicians (and interned for two others) and I am actively involved in GLBT activism. He's involved with political action committees.

That's really cool man! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

I'm a student now, but I've campaigned for many politicians (and interned for two others) and I am actively involved in GLBT activism. He's involved with political action committees.

That's really cool man! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

I'm a student now, but I've campaigned for many politicians (and interned for two others) and I am actively involved in GLBT activism. He's involved with political action committees.

That's really cool man! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[spideyboy_1111]

cool cools, sounds like you both keep busy

[spideyboy_1111]

cool cools, sounds like you both keep busy

[spideyboy_1111]

cool cools, sounds like you both keep busy

[souvlaki]

We were actually looking at moving to San Diego, LA or Sacramento in a few years when we're done with school... this decision obviously makes both options more appealing :word:

I'd suggest anywhere in Northern California over Southern California. Lived 30 minutes from LA all my life, and it is without a doubt the most overrated large metropolitan city in the country. Traffic sucks, public transportation sucks, air pollution is horrible, rent is ridiculously overpriced (as is just about everything else), and every person I've met that has moved here from out of state absolutely hated it. I think the only reason I put up with it is because I grew up here, and my friends and family are all here. San Diego is okay, but other than Comic Con I wouldn't say there is anything particularly special about it.

[souvlaki]

We were actually looking at moving to San Diego, LA or Sacramento in a few years when we're done with school... this decision obviously makes both options more appealing :word:

I'd suggest anywhere in Northern California over Southern California. Lived 30 minutes from LA all my life, and it is without a doubt the most overrated large metropolitan city in the country. Traffic sucks, public transportation sucks, air pollution is horrible, rent is ridiculously overpriced (as is just about everything else), and every person I've met that has moved here from out of state absolutely hated it. I think the only reason I put up with it is because I grew up here, and my friends and family are all here. San Diego is okay, but other than Comic Con I wouldn't say there is anything particularly special about it.

[souvlaki]

We were actually looking at moving to San Diego, LA or Sacramento in a few years when we're done with school... this decision obviously makes both options more appealing :word:

I'd suggest anywhere in Northern California over Southern California. Lived 30 minutes from LA all my life, and it is without a doubt the most overrated large metropolitan city in the country. Traffic sucks, public transportation sucks, air pollution is horrible, rent is ridiculously overpriced (as is just about everything else), and every person I've met that has moved here from out of state absolutely hated it. I think the only reason I put up with it is because I grew up here, and my friends and family are all here. San Diego is okay, but other than Comic Con I wouldn't say there is anything particularly special about it.

[souvlaki]

Hmmm... when I went to LA, I loved it... I haven't been to San Diego yet, but the boyfriend has... chances are, SD will trump LA, but Sacramento will trump all other choices... IF we end up in California at all...

LA is a cool place... to visit. But in my opinion it gets old pretty fast. Sitting in traffic for close to three hours just to go twenty miles is enough to drive any person mad. Of course there are plenty of people that love it here, so don't just take my word for it. There are some neat little areas in LA county. Had an affordable apartment four blocks from the ocean in Long Beach up until about six months ago, and I loved it there, but for me that was always the exception to the rule. Orange County can be nice as well, but it's extremely overpriced, and extremely conservative (well, by CA standards at least).

[souvlaki]

Hmmm... when I went to LA, I loved it... I haven't been to San Diego yet, but the boyfriend has... chances are, SD will trump LA, but Sacramento will trump all other choices... IF we end up in California at all...

LA is a cool place... to visit. But in my opinion it gets old pretty fast. Sitting in traffic for close to three hours just to go twenty miles is enough to drive any person mad. Of course there are plenty of people that love it here, so don't just take my word for it. There are some neat little areas in LA county. Had an affordable apartment four blocks from the ocean in Long Beach up until about six months ago, and I loved it there, but for me that was always the exception to the rule. Orange County can be nice as well, but it's extremely overpriced, and extremely conservative (well, by CA standards at least).

[souvlaki]

Hmmm... when I went to LA, I loved it... I haven't been to San Diego yet, but the boyfriend has... chances are, SD will trump LA, but Sacramento will trump all other choices... IF we end up in California at all...

LA is a cool place... to visit. But in my opinion it gets old pretty fast. Sitting in traffic for close to three hours just to go twenty miles is enough to drive any person mad. Of course there are plenty of people that love it here, so don't just take my word for it. There are some neat little areas in LA county. Had an affordable apartment four blocks from the ocean in Long Beach up until about six months ago, and I loved it there, but for me that was always the exception to the rule. Orange County can be nice as well, but it's extremely overpriced, and extremely conservative (well, by CA standards at least).

[The Senator]

I'd suggest anywhere in Northern California over Southern California. Lived 30 minutes from LA all my life, and it is without a doubt the most overrated large metropolitan city in the country. Traffic sucks, public transportation sucks, air pollution is horrible, rent is ridiculously overpriced (as is just about everything else), and every person I've met that has moved here from out of state absolutely hated it. I think the only reason I put up with it is because I grew up here, and my friends and family are all here. San Diego is okay, but other than Comic Con I wouldn't say there is anything particularly special about it.

I've heard this too... I have a few years before I move, so anything can change... all I know is that the past two/ almost three years I've lived in "the south," I've come to appreciate a warm and sunny climate, compared to the wet, rainy and unpredictable weather of Upstate New York and the Great Lakes region... so wherever I end up, there will have to be sun and warmth, or at least very little snow (ideally of course; there will probably be room for exceptions).

[The Senator]

I'd suggest anywhere in Northern California over Southern California. Lived 30 minutes from LA all my life, and it is without a doubt the most overrated large metropolitan city in the country. Traffic sucks, public transportation sucks, air pollution is horrible, rent is ridiculously overpriced (as is just about everything else), and every person I've met that has moved here from out of state absolutely hated it. I think the only reason I put up with it is because I grew up here, and my friends and family are all here. San Diego is okay, but other than Comic Con I wouldn't say there is anything particularly special about it.

I've heard this too... I have a few years before I move, so anything can change... all I know is that the past two/ almost three years I've lived in "the south," I've come to appreciate a warm and sunny climate, compared to the wet, rainy and unpredictable weather of Upstate New York and the Great Lakes region... so wherever I end up, there will have to be sun and warmth, or at least very little snow (ideally of course; there will probably be room for exceptions).

[The Senator]

I'd suggest anywhere in Northern California over Southern California. Lived 30 minutes from LA all my life, and it is without a doubt the most overrated large metropolitan city in the country. Traffic sucks, public transportation sucks, air pollution is horrible, rent is ridiculously overpriced (as is just about everything else), and every person I've met that has moved here from out of state absolutely hated it. I think the only reason I put up with it is because I grew up here, and my friends and family are all here. San Diego is okay, but other than Comic Con I wouldn't say there is anything particularly special about it.

I've heard this too... I have a few years before I move, so anything can change... all I know is that the past two/ almost three years I've lived in "the south," I've come to appreciate a warm and sunny climate, compared to the wet, rainy and unpredictable weather of Upstate New York and the Great Lakes region... so wherever I end up, there will have to be sun and warmth, or at least very little snow (ideally of course; there will probably be room for exceptions).

[BlackLantern]

I've heard this too... I have a few years before I move, so anything can change... all I know is that the past two/ almost three years I've lived in "the south," I've come to appreciate a warm and sunny climate, compared to the wet, rainy and unpredictable weather of Upstate New York and the Great Lakes region... so wherever I end up, there will have to be sun and warmth, or at least very little snow (ideally of course; there will probably be room for exceptions).

Quit being a girl and whining about the weather....:oldrazz:.....we have variety here in New England...we have snow, rain, sun, all kinds of cool weather.....and if you don't like it...wait 5 minutes...it'll change

[BlackLantern]

I've heard this too... I have a few years before I move, so anything can change... all I know is that the past two/ almost three years I've lived in "the south," I've come to appreciate a warm and sunny climate, compared to the wet, rainy and unpredictable weather of Upstate New York and the Great Lakes region... so wherever I end up, there will have to be sun and warmth, or at least very little snow (ideally of course; there will probably be room for exceptions).

Quit being a girl and whining about the weather....:oldrazz:.....we have variety here in New England...we have snow, rain, sun, all kinds of cool weather.....and if you don't like it...wait 5 minutes...it'll change

[BlackLantern]

I've heard this too... I have a few years before I move, so anything can change... all I know is that the past two/ almost three years I've lived in "the south," I've come to appreciate a warm and sunny climate, compared to the wet, rainy and unpredictable weather of Upstate New York and the Great Lakes region... so wherever I end up, there will have to be sun and warmth, or at least very little snow (ideally of course; there will probably be room for exceptions).

Quit being a girl and whining about the weather....:oldrazz:.....we have variety here in New England...we have snow, rain, sun, all kinds of cool weather.....and if you don't like it...wait 5 minutes...it'll change

[souvlaki]

Quit being a girl and whining about the weather....:oldrazz:.....we have variety here in New England...we have snow, rain, sun, all kinds of cool weather.....and if you don't like it...wait 5 minutes...it'll change

As someone that has lived in California all my life, I must say that is rather appealing to me. Perfect weather starts getting a little annoying after three months without a cloud in the sky. Sometimes it feels like we only have two seasons here, summer, and spring.

Though it is pretty nice during the winter to be able to drive 30 minutes and see snow without actually having to shovel it out of my driveway.

[souvlaki]

Quit being a girl and whining about the weather....:oldrazz:.....we have variety here in New England...we have snow, rain, sun, all kinds of cool weather.....and if you don't like it...wait 5 minutes...it'll change

As someone that has lived in California all my life, I must say that is rather appealing to me. Perfect weather starts getting a little annoying after three months without a cloud in the sky. Sometimes it feels like we only have two seasons here, summer, and spring.

Though it is pretty nice during the winter to be able to drive 30 minutes and see snow without actually having to shovel it out of my driveway.

[souvlaki]

Quit being a girl and whining about the weather....:oldrazz:.....we have variety here in New England...we have snow, rain, sun, all kinds of cool weather.....and if you don't like it...wait 5 minutes...it'll change

As someone that has lived in California all my life, I must say that is rather appealing to me. Perfect weather starts getting a little annoying after three months without a cloud in the sky. Sometimes it feels like we only have two seasons here, summer, and spring.

Though it is pretty nice during the winter to be able to drive 30 minutes and see snow without actually having to shovel it out of my driveway.

[The Senator]

Per AP:


SEATTLE - The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.


The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.

Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.

But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.

Under Wednesday's ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.

Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years — two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."

The appeals court judges disagreed.

"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.

One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."

Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.

Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."

"If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"

An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.

Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."

Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."

Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.

"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."

Score yet another win (somewhat) for civil liberties!

[The Senator]

Per AP:


SEATTLE - The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.


The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.

Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.

But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.

Under Wednesday's ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.

Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years — two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."

The appeals court judges disagreed.

"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.

One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."

Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.

Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."

"If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"

An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.

Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."

Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."

Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.

"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."

Score yet another win (somewhat) for civil liberties!

[The Senator]

Per AP:


SEATTLE - The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.


The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.

Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.

But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.

Under Wednesday's ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.

Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years — two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."

The appeals court judges disagreed.

"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.

One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."

Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.

Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."

"If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"

An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.

Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."

Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."

Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.

"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."

Score yet another win (somewhat) for civil liberties!

[Superman4ever]

Wow. I never agreed with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

I believe ALL willing Americans/citizens should have the opportunity to serve their country.

[Superman4ever]

Wow. I never agreed with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

I believe ALL willing Americans/citizens should have the opportunity to serve their country.

[Superman4ever]

Wow. I never agreed with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

I believe ALL willing Americans/citizens should have the opportunity to serve their country.

[The Senator]

It's a totally pointless policy, as far as I'm concerned. From what I've heard, heterosexual soldiers talk constantly about their sex lives. It's almost guaranteed in any barrack. Why aren't homosexuals allowed to acknowledge their own sexuality? Why should they be forced to hide themselves, while heterosexual soldiers are allowed to tell their comrades all about their personal lives? At the very least, it's a crude double standard.

At any rate, DADT is on its last legs. According to the Army Times, 52% of outed homosexuals aren't even punished anymore for admitting their sexuality, simply because the military is stretched to its limits. Why enforce a policy which isn't really being enforced anymore? It's stupid. It's a non-issue. And I'm glad this ruling came to be, because I have a feeling this is the first step in getting rid of this moronic policy altogether. I have a good feeling DADT will be kicked out the door in another year or so.

[The Senator]

It's a totally pointless policy, as far as I'm concerned. From what I've heard, heterosexual soldiers talk constantly about their sex lives. It's almost guaranteed in any barrack. Why aren't homosexuals allowed to acknowledge their own sexuality? Why should they be forced to hide themselves, while heterosexual soldiers are allowed to tell their comrades all about their personal lives? At the very least, it's a crude double standard.

At any rate, DADT is on its last legs. According to the Army Times, 52% of outed homosexuals aren't even punished anymore for admitting their sexuality, simply because the military is stretched to its limits. Why enforce a policy which isn't really being enforced anymore? It's stupid. It's a non-issue. And I'm glad this ruling came to be, because I have a feeling this is the first step in getting rid of this moronic policy altogether. I have a good feeling DADT will be kicked out the door in another year or so.

[The Senator]

It's a totally pointless policy, as far as I'm concerned. From what I've heard, heterosexual soldiers talk constantly about their sex lives. It's almost guaranteed in any barrack. Why aren't homosexuals allowed to acknowledge their own sexuality? Why should they be forced to hide themselves, while heterosexual soldiers are allowed to tell their comrades all about their personal lives? At the very least, it's a crude double standard.

At any rate, DADT is on its last legs. According to the Army Times, 52% of outed homosexuals aren't even punished anymore for admitting their sexuality, simply because the military is stretched to its limits. Why enforce a policy which isn't really being enforced anymore? It's stupid. It's a non-issue. And I'm glad this ruling came to be, because I have a feeling this is the first step in getting rid of this moronic policy altogether. I have a good feeling DADT will be kicked out the door in another year or so.

[MaskedManJRK]

Score yet another win (somewhat) for civil liberties!

Indeed! :up:

[MaskedManJRK]

Score yet another win (somewhat) for civil liberties!

Indeed! :up:

[MaskedManJRK]

Score yet another win (somewhat) for civil liberties!

Indeed! :up:

[souvlaki]

Great week for civil liberties in our country. :up:

[souvlaki]

Great week for civil liberties in our country. :up:

[souvlaki]

Great week for civil liberties in our country. :up:

[Memphis Slim]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

[Memphis Slim]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

[Memphis Slim]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

[Mister Sinister]

So let me get this straight (sorry), is DADT being repealed?

[Mister Sinister]

So let me get this straight (sorry), is DADT being repealed?

[Mister Sinister]

So let me get this straight (sorry), is DADT being repealed?

[SuBe]

I was in the Marine Corps. It doesn't matter one way or another if someone is Gay or Not, if that person is willing to sacrifice themselves for the lives of their buddies, that's all that matters. I would rather have a Gay man next to me willing to fight, than a straight man ready to run.

[SuBe]

I was in the Marine Corps. It doesn't matter one way or another if someone is Gay or Not, if that person is willing to sacrifice themselves for the lives of their buddies, that's all that matters. I would rather have a Gay man next to me willing to fight, than a straight man ready to run.

[SuBe]

I was in the Marine Corps. It doesn't matter one way or another if someone is Gay or Not, if that person is willing to sacrifice themselves for the lives of their buddies, that's all that matters. I would rather have a Gay man next to me willing to fight, than a straight man ready to run.

[Memphis Slim]

I was in the Marine Corps. It doesn't matter one way or another if someone is Gay or Not, if that person is willing to sacrifice themselves for the lives of their buddies, that's all that matters. I would rather have a Gay man next to me willing to fight, than a straight man ready to run.


Maybe that's the way "you" feel! But I guarantee you not every soldier is down with that! I'd wager a pretty big majority.

I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.

There have always been homosexuals in battle. No one is denying that. But the cohesion of a unit....the comfort level of the guy next to you is key. And not evrybody is as open to it as you.

There's already enough tension now with the mixing of men and women together. They don't need this too.

[Memphis Slim]

I was in the Marine Corps. It doesn't matter one way or another if someone is Gay or Not, if that person is willing to sacrifice themselves for the lives of their buddies, that's all that matters. I would rather have a Gay man next to me willing to fight, than a straight man ready to run.


Maybe that's the way "you" feel! But I guarantee you not every soldier is down with that! I'd wager a pretty big majority.

I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.

There have always been homosexuals in battle. No one is denying that. But the cohesion of a unit....the comfort level of the guy next to you is key. And not evrybody is as open to it as you.

There's already enough tension now with the mixing of men and women together. They don't need this too.

[Memphis Slim]

I was in the Marine Corps. It doesn't matter one way or another if someone is Gay or Not, if that person is willing to sacrifice themselves for the lives of their buddies, that's all that matters. I would rather have a Gay man next to me willing to fight, than a straight man ready to run.


Maybe that's the way "you" feel! But I guarantee you not every soldier is down with that! I'd wager a pretty big majority.

I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.

There have always been homosexuals in battle. No one is denying that. But the cohesion of a unit....the comfort level of the guy next to you is key. And not evrybody is as open to it as you.

There's already enough tension now with the mixing of men and women together. They don't need this too.

[SuBe]

Maybe that's the way "you" feel! But I guarantee you not every soldier is down with that! I'd wager a pretty big majority.

I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.

There have always been homosexuals in battle. No one is denying that. But the cohesion of a unit....the comfort level of the guy next to you is key. And not evrybody is as open to it as you.
Why don't they let the Military Vote? Because the F'n military isn't a freaking Democracy. Have you been in the military? Do you know anything about "unit cohesion"? Espirit de corps? No, you wouldn't understand the difference between someone having their **** squared away and someone who doesn't. What does it matter if someone perfers the same sex? How does it take away anything from the job that needs to be done? Yeah, keep it to yourself, don't make it illegal to be one. And what does "comfort level" have to do with anything? How freaking comfortable can you be when you are carrying 180 pounds on your back and you have a guy next to you on a strecher that needs to be carried, would you rather do it yourself or have some one that may be gay help you carried that guy to the Helo? It's a retard commentary, this "Gays in the Military", Most guys don't care, as long as they keep their **** straight and don't harass them. You may not understand this, but the Military, at least the Marine Corps, is one of the Most PC organizations out there, there is no Black people, no White, no Men, no Women. No Asians, or Indians. Everyone is Green. Thats it. As long as that person keeps there **** clean and and carries their load, that's all that matters.

[SuBe]

Maybe that's the way "you" feel! But I guarantee you not every soldier is down with that! I'd wager a pretty big majority.

I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.

There have always been homosexuals in battle. No one is denying that. But the cohesion of a unit....the comfort level of the guy next to you is key. And not evrybody is as open to it as you.
Why don't they let the Military Vote? Because the F'n military isn't a freaking Democracy. Have you been in the military? Do you know anything about "unit cohesion"? Espirit de corps? No, you wouldn't understand the difference between someone having their **** squared away and someone who doesn't. What does it matter if someone perfers the same sex? How does it take away anything from the job that needs to be done? Yeah, keep it to yourself, don't make it illegal to be one. And what does "comfort level" have to do with anything? How freaking comfortable can you be when you are carrying 180 pounds on your back and you have a guy next to you on a strecher that needs to be carried, would you rather do it yourself or have some one that may be gay help you carried that guy to the Helo? It's a retard commentary, this "Gays in the Military", Most guys don't care, as long as they keep their **** straight and don't harass them. You may not understand this, but the Military, at least the Marine Corps, is one of the Most PC organizations out there, there is no Black people, no White, no Men, no Women. No Asians, or Indians. Everyone is Green. Thats it. As long as that person keeps there **** clean and and carries their load, that's all that matters.

[SuBe]

Maybe that's the way "you" feel! But I guarantee you not every soldier is down with that! I'd wager a pretty big majority.

I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.

There have always been homosexuals in battle. No one is denying that. But the cohesion of a unit....the comfort level of the guy next to you is key. And not evrybody is as open to it as you.
Why don't they let the Military Vote? Because the F'n military isn't a freaking Democracy. Have you been in the military? Do you know anything about "unit cohesion"? Espirit de corps? No, you wouldn't understand the difference between someone having their **** squared away and someone who doesn't. What does it matter if someone perfers the same sex? How does it take away anything from the job that needs to be done? Yeah, keep it to yourself, don't make it illegal to be one. And what does "comfort level" have to do with anything? How freaking comfortable can you be when you are carrying 180 pounds on your back and you have a guy next to you on a strecher that needs to be carried, would you rather do it yourself or have some one that may be gay help you carried that guy to the Helo? It's a retard commentary, this "Gays in the Military", Most guys don't care, as long as they keep their **** straight and don't harass them. You may not understand this, but the Military, at least the Marine Corps, is one of the Most PC organizations out there, there is no Black people, no White, no Men, no Women. No Asians, or Indians. Everyone is Green. Thats it. As long as that person keeps there **** clean and and carries their load, that's all that matters.

[Spider-Bite]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

and they don't need to live in hiding either. Way to show support for our troops, fighting to protect freedom of speech, so long as they don't excercise it, right? They are risking their life for your right to freedom of speech, and here you are saying they shouldn't have that right. Your a hypocrite enjoying the same freedoms you would deny to others. Plus what if they are a gay married couple? By law they should have to deny that they are married?

However the federal appeals court should not have ruled this way. I disagree with the law, but it's not their job to write the law. I don't like judges twisting the law to say whatever they want it to say. If a just law gets passed by democrats, I'd be just as upset if conservative judges refused to enforce it.

We have a system of order, and it's useless if the government doesn't enforce it's own laws. In some instances judicial activism is required, such as striking down segregated education laws. And I do not consider these rescent supreme court rulings allowing gays to marry, to be judicial activism. If the constitution recognizes marriage as between "two parties" and not between a "man and a woman", than the constitution recognizes marriage between any two individuals, and a law passed at a lower level of government, can not override that.

[Spider-Bite]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

and they don't need to live in hiding either. Way to show support for our troops, fighting to protect freedom of speech, so long as they don't excercise it, right? They are risking their life for your right to freedom of speech, and here you are saying they shouldn't have that right. Your a hypocrite enjoying the same freedoms you would deny to others. Plus what if they are a gay married couple? By law they should have to deny that they are married?

However the federal appeals court should not have ruled this way. I disagree with the law, but it's not their job to write the law. I don't like judges twisting the law to say whatever they want it to say. If a just law gets passed by democrats, I'd be just as upset if conservative judges refused to enforce it.

We have a system of order, and it's useless if the government doesn't enforce it's own laws. In some instances judicial activism is required, such as striking down segregated education laws. And I do not consider these rescent supreme court rulings allowing gays to marry, to be judicial activism. If the constitution recognizes marriage as between "two parties" and not between a "man and a woman", than the constitution recognizes marriage between any two individuals, and a law passed at a lower level of government, can not override that.

[Spider-Bite]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

and they don't need to live in hiding either. Way to show support for our troops, fighting to protect freedom of speech, so long as they don't excercise it, right? They are risking their life for your right to freedom of speech, and here you are saying they shouldn't have that right. Your a hypocrite enjoying the same freedoms you would deny to others. Plus what if they are a gay married couple? By law they should have to deny that they are married?

However the federal appeals court should not have ruled this way. I disagree with the law, but it's not their job to write the law. I don't like judges twisting the law to say whatever they want it to say. If a just law gets passed by democrats, I'd be just as upset if conservative judges refused to enforce it.

We have a system of order, and it's useless if the government doesn't enforce it's own laws. In some instances judicial activism is required, such as striking down segregated education laws. And I do not consider these rescent supreme court rulings allowing gays to marry, to be judicial activism. If the constitution recognizes marriage as between "two parties" and not between a "man and a woman", than the constitution recognizes marriage between any two individuals, and a law passed at a lower level of government, can not override that.

[BlackLantern]

I served in the USN and served with two gay men....everyone that we worked with knew but no one really cared and they kept their personal life quiet (for obvious reasons)....People need to get over themselves and the juvenile thought that someone is going to jump you in the shower or something...

[BlackLantern]

I served in the USN and served with two gay men....everyone that we worked with knew but no one really cared and they kept their personal life quiet (for obvious reasons)....People need to get over themselves and the juvenile thought that someone is going to jump you in the shower or something...

[BlackLantern]

I served in the USN and served with two gay men....everyone that we worked with knew but no one really cared and they kept their personal life quiet (for obvious reasons)....People need to get over themselves and the juvenile thought that someone is going to jump you in the shower or something...

[Memphis Slim]

Why don't they let the Military Vote? Because the F'n military isn't a freaking Democracy. Have you been in the military? Do you know anything about "unit cohesion"? Espirit de corps? No, you wouldn't understand the difference between someone having their **** squared away and someone who doesn't.

No. I haven't served. But I have common sense and a bead on human nature. I know you don't mix gas and a lit match. And just because you did serve doesn't make you the authority on how accepted this would be. You may like it. But there are many that don't. I know that hard for you to accept. Sexuality is a veeeery personal thing. Especially for men. I know the military is not a democracy. But for this.....??? This issue?? They need to make an exception. This could turly effect how well our military functions.


What does it matter if someone perfers the same sex? How does it take away anything from the job that needs to be done? Yeah, keep it to yourself, don't make it illegal to be one. And what does "comfort level" have to do with anything? How freaking comfortable can you be when you are carrying 180 pounds on your back and you have a guy next to you on a strecher that needs to be carried, would you rather do it yourself or have some one that may be gay help you carried that guy to the Helo? It's a retard commentary, this "Gays in the Military", Most guys don't care, as long as they keep their **** straight and don't harass them. You may not understand this, but the Military, at least the Marine Corps, is one of the Most PC organizations out there, there is no Black people, no White, no Men, no Women. No Asians, or Indians. Everyone is Green. Thats it. As long as that person keeps there **** clean and and carries their load, that's all that matters.


That's because for now......no one knows.

[Memphis Slim]

Why don't they let the Military Vote? Because the F'n military isn't a freaking Democracy. Have you been in the military? Do you know anything about "unit cohesion"? Espirit de corps? No, you wouldn't understand the difference between someone having their **** squared away and someone who doesn't.

No. I haven't served. But I have common sense and a bead on human nature. I know you don't mix gas and a lit match. And just because you did serve doesn't make you the authority on how accepted this would be. You may like it. But there are many that don't. I know that hard for you to accept. Sexuality is a veeeery personal thing. Especially for men. I know the military is not a democracy. But for this.....??? This issue?? They need to make an exception. This could turly effect how well our military functions.


What does it matter if someone perfers the same sex? How does it take away anything from the job that needs to be done? Yeah, keep it to yourself, don't make it illegal to be one. And what does "comfort level" have to do with anything? How freaking comfortable can you be when you are carrying 180 pounds on your back and you have a guy next to you on a strecher that needs to be carried, would you rather do it yourself or have some one that may be gay help you carried that guy to the Helo? It's a retard commentary, this "Gays in the Military", Most guys don't care, as long as they keep their **** straight and don't harass them. You may not understand this, but the Military, at least the Marine Corps, is one of the Most PC organizations out there, there is no Black people, no White, no Men, no Women. No Asians, or Indians. Everyone is Green. Thats it. As long as that person keeps there **** clean and and carries their load, that's all that matters.


That's because for now......no one knows.

[Memphis Slim]

Why don't they let the Military Vote? Because the F'n military isn't a freaking Democracy. Have you been in the military? Do you know anything about "unit cohesion"? Espirit de corps? No, you wouldn't understand the difference between someone having their **** squared away and someone who doesn't.

No. I haven't served. But I have common sense and a bead on human nature. I know you don't mix gas and a lit match. And just because you did serve doesn't make you the authority on how accepted this would be. You may like it. But there are many that don't. I know that hard for you to accept. Sexuality is a veeeery personal thing. Especially for men. I know the military is not a democracy. But for this.....??? This issue?? They need to make an exception. This could turly effect how well our military functions.


What does it matter if someone perfers the same sex? How does it take away anything from the job that needs to be done? Yeah, keep it to yourself, don't make it illegal to be one. And what does "comfort level" have to do with anything? How freaking comfortable can you be when you are carrying 180 pounds on your back and you have a guy next to you on a strecher that needs to be carried, would you rather do it yourself or have some one that may be gay help you carried that guy to the Helo? It's a retard commentary, this "Gays in the Military", Most guys don't care, as long as they keep their **** straight and don't harass them. You may not understand this, but the Military, at least the Marine Corps, is one of the Most PC organizations out there, there is no Black people, no White, no Men, no Women. No Asians, or Indians. Everyone is Green. Thats it. As long as that person keeps there **** clean and and carries their load, that's all that matters.


That's because for now......no one knows.

[SuBe]

I served in the USN and served with two gay men....everyone that we worked with knew but no one really cared and they kept their personal life quiet (for obvious reasons)....People need to get over themselves and the juvenile thought that someone is going to jump you in the shower or something...
And if that happened it would be rape and assault, just as if a man did that to a woman. So, it would be charged as such.

[SuBe]

I served in the USN and served with two gay men....everyone that we worked with knew but no one really cared and they kept their personal life quiet (for obvious reasons)....People need to get over themselves and the juvenile thought that someone is going to jump you in the shower or something...
And if that happened it would be rape and assault, just as if a man did that to a woman. So, it would be charged as such.

[SuBe]

I served in the USN and served with two gay men....everyone that we worked with knew but no one really cared and they kept their personal life quiet (for obvious reasons)....People need to get over themselves and the juvenile thought that someone is going to jump you in the shower or something...
And if that happened it would be rape and assault, just as if a man did that to a woman. So, it would be charged as such.

[Memphis Slim]

I served in the USN and served with two gay men....everyone that we worked with knew but no one really cared and they kept their personal life quiet (for obvious reasons)....People need to get over themselves and the juvenile thought that someone is going to jump you in the shower or something...


You guys cannot judge how the over-all impact would be just based on your personal experiences. The genie is till in the bottle.

[Memphis Slim]

I served in the USN and served with two gay men....everyone that we worked with knew but no one really cared and they kept their personal life quiet (for obvious reasons)....People need to get over themselves and the juvenile thought that someone is going to jump you in the shower or something...


You guys cannot judge how the over-all impact would be just based on your personal experiences. The genie is till in the bottle.

[Memphis Slim]

I served in the USN and served with two gay men....everyone that we worked with knew but no one really cared and they kept their personal life quiet (for obvious reasons)....People need to get over themselves and the juvenile thought that someone is going to jump you in the shower or something...


You guys cannot judge how the over-all impact would be just based on your personal experiences. The genie is till in the bottle.

[Carcharodon]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.What the hell difference does it make? Seriously? If you're in a life or death situation and you're more worried about some guy buggering you in your sleep or something, you need to sort out your priorities.

Then again, it all comes back to the bigoted assumption that all gay people want to do is **** you.

[Carcharodon]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.What the hell difference does it make? Seriously? If you're in a life or death situation and you're more worried about some guy buggering you in your sleep or something, you need to sort out your priorities.

Then again, it all comes back to the bigoted assumption that all gay people want to do is **** you.

[Carcharodon]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.What the hell difference does it make? Seriously? If you're in a life or death situation and you're more worried about some guy buggering you in your sleep or something, you need to sort out your priorities.

Then again, it all comes back to the bigoted assumption that all gay people want to do is **** you.

[Marx]

Great week for civil liberties in our country. :up:

Indeed it has Souv!

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

That's a bit ignorant Slim. I don't want to get into a full-fledged debate about this with you but to assume that all gay people want to do is have sex with you and jump on you at night like some kind of animal is completely ridiculous! People should be thankful that there are others who are willing to sacrifice themselves for our country - gay or not.

So let me get this straight (sorry), is DADT being repealed?

Not yet, but it should be. Hopefully it will be under a Democratic president next January.

[Marx]

Great week for civil liberties in our country. :up:

Indeed it has Souv!

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

That's a bit ignorant Slim. I don't want to get into a full-fledged debate about this with you but to assume that all gay people want to do is have sex with you and jump on you at night like some kind of animal is completely ridiculous! People should be thankful that there are others who are willing to sacrifice themselves for our country - gay or not.

So let me get this straight (sorry), is DADT being repealed?

Not yet, but it should be. Hopefully it will be under a Democratic president next January.

[Marx]

Great week for civil liberties in our country. :up:

Indeed it has Souv!

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

That's a bit ignorant Slim. I don't want to get into a full-fledged debate about this with you but to assume that all gay people want to do is have sex with you and jump on you at night like some kind of animal is completely ridiculous! People should be thankful that there are others who are willing to sacrifice themselves for our country - gay or not.

So let me get this straight (sorry), is DADT being repealed?

Not yet, but it should be. Hopefully it will be under a Democratic president next January.

[Addendum]

The way celldog sounds in this thread, it's almost like he walks around with his gaydar constantly on and a sign on his ass saying "exit only"

[Addendum]

The way celldog sounds in this thread, it's almost like he walks around with his gaydar constantly on and a sign on his ass saying "exit only"

[Addendum]

The way celldog sounds in this thread, it's almost like he walks around with his gaydar constantly on and a sign on his ass saying "exit only"

[souvlaki]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

So, let me get this straight... It's okay for people in the military to talk about their sexual experiences with women, but the second one of them talks about their homosexuality it's too much information?

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but isn't it perfectly legal for a man and a woman serving in the military together to have a sexual relationship?

[souvlaki]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

So, let me get this straight... It's okay for people in the military to talk about their sexual experiences with women, but the second one of them talks about their homosexuality it's too much information?

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but isn't it perfectly legal for a man and a woman serving in the military together to have a sexual relationship?

[souvlaki]

It's not a pointless policy.

You live in close quarters with strangers. You don't need to know that one or more are gay.

So, let me get this straight... It's okay for people in the military to talk about their sexual experiences with women, but the second one of them talks about their homosexuality it's too much information?

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but isn't it perfectly legal for a man and a woman serving in the military together to have a sexual relationship?

[The Senator]

Maybe that's the way "you" feel! But I guarantee you not every soldier is down with that! I'd wager a pretty big majority.

I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.

There have always been homosexuals in battle. No one is denying that. But the cohesion of a unit....the comfort level of the guy next to you is key. And not evrybody is as open to it as you.

There's already enough tension now with the mixing of men and women together. They don't need this too.

Then they should tell soldiers that heterosexuality is unacceptable, and they should kick out straight soldiers for discussing their sexual preferences, which happens all the time.

But seriously, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to reveal who they are? Why can't they serve openly? Just because bigots think it's icky two men have sex with another, doesn't mean an entire class of people deserves to be oppressed.

That's the most idiotic reason you can give. That proves DADT is discrimination in its finest form. You're telling folks their behavior is unacceptable, even though heterosexual soldiers are allowed to discuss their personal lives in as much vivid detail. It's a disgusting disgrace.

[The Senator]

Maybe that's the way "you" feel! But I guarantee you not every soldier is down with that! I'd wager a pretty big majority.

I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.

There have always been homosexuals in battle. No one is denying that. But the cohesion of a unit....the comfort level of the guy next to you is key. And not evrybody is as open to it as you.

There's already enough tension now with the mixing of men and women together. They don't need this too.

Then they should tell soldiers that heterosexuality is unacceptable, and they should kick out straight soldiers for discussing their sexual preferences, which happens all the time.

But seriously, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to reveal who they are? Why can't they serve openly? Just because bigots think it's icky two men have sex with another, doesn't mean an entire class of people deserves to be oppressed.

That's the most idiotic reason you can give. That proves DADT is discrimination in its finest form. You're telling folks their behavior is unacceptable, even though heterosexual soldiers are allowed to discuss their personal lives in as much vivid detail. It's a disgusting disgrace.

[The Senator]

Maybe that's the way "you" feel! But I guarantee you not every soldier is down with that! I'd wager a pretty big majority.

I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.

There have always been homosexuals in battle. No one is denying that. But the cohesion of a unit....the comfort level of the guy next to you is key. And not evrybody is as open to it as you.

There's already enough tension now with the mixing of men and women together. They don't need this too.

Then they should tell soldiers that heterosexuality is unacceptable, and they should kick out straight soldiers for discussing their sexual preferences, which happens all the time.

But seriously, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to reveal who they are? Why can't they serve openly? Just because bigots think it's icky two men have sex with another, doesn't mean an entire class of people deserves to be oppressed.

That's the most idiotic reason you can give. That proves DADT is discrimination in its finest form. You're telling folks their behavior is unacceptable, even though heterosexual soldiers are allowed to discuss their personal lives in as much vivid detail. It's a disgusting disgrace.

[Addendum]

And it's not like homosexuals have to tap every ass they see. Us straight guys don't do that. We're picky as hell.

[Addendum]

And it's not like homosexuals have to tap every ass they see. Us straight guys don't do that. We're picky as hell.

[Addendum]

And it's not like homosexuals have to tap every ass they see. Us straight guys don't do that. We're picky as hell.

[BlackLantern]

Then they should tell soldiers that heterosexuality is unacceptable, and they should kick out straight soldiers for discussing their sexual preferences, which happens all the time.

But seriously, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to reveal who they are? Why can't they serve openly? Just because bigots think it's icky two men have sex with another, doesn't mean an entire class of people deserves to be oppressed.

That's the most idiotic reason you can give. That proves DADT is discrimination in its finest form. You're telling folks their behavior is unacceptable, even though heterosexual soldiers are allowed to discuss their personal lives in as much vivid detail. It's a disgusting disgrace.

Well let me tell you Jman...this one girl let me ****** her ***** and then we ***** my ******, after we ****** for about ***** and then I wanted to ******** ******** and she ******* ** ****** car battery ****** ******* with a 9 iron, and then we went to breakfast.....:oldrazz:

[BlackLantern]

Then they should tell soldiers that heterosexuality is unacceptable, and they should kick out straight soldiers for discussing their sexual preferences, which happens all the time.

But seriously, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to reveal who they are? Why can't they serve openly? Just because bigots think it's icky two men have sex with another, doesn't mean an entire class of people deserves to be oppressed.

That's the most idiotic reason you can give. That proves DADT is discrimination in its finest form. You're telling folks their behavior is unacceptable, even though heterosexual soldiers are allowed to discuss their personal lives in as much vivid detail. It's a disgusting disgrace.

Well let me tell you Jman...this one girl let me ****** her ***** and then we ***** my ******, after we ****** for about ***** and then I wanted to ******** ******** and she ******* ** ****** car battery ****** ******* with a 9 iron, and then we went to breakfast.....:oldrazz:

[BlackLantern]

Then they should tell soldiers that heterosexuality is unacceptable, and they should kick out straight soldiers for discussing their sexual preferences, which happens all the time.

But seriously, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to reveal who they are? Why can't they serve openly? Just because bigots think it's icky two men have sex with another, doesn't mean an entire class of people deserves to be oppressed.

That's the most idiotic reason you can give. That proves DADT is discrimination in its finest form. You're telling folks their behavior is unacceptable, even though heterosexual soldiers are allowed to discuss their personal lives in as much vivid detail. It's a disgusting disgrace.

Well let me tell you Jman...this one girl let me ****** her ***** and then we ***** my ******, after we ****** for about ***** and then I wanted to ******** ******** and she ******* ** ****** car battery ****** ******* with a 9 iron, and then we went to breakfast.....:oldrazz:

[Addendum]

Well let me tell you Jman...this one girl let me ****** her ***** and then we ***** my ******, after we ****** for about ***** and then I wanted to ******** ******** and she ******* ** ****** car battery ****** ******* with a 9 iron, and then we went to breakfast.....:oldrazz:

YfDgajSoI3s

[Addendum]

Well let me tell you Jman...this one girl let me ****** her ***** and then we ***** my ******, after we ****** for about ***** and then I wanted to ******** ******** and she ******* ** ****** car battery ****** ******* with a 9 iron, and then we went to breakfast.....:oldrazz:

YfDgajSoI3s

[Addendum]

Well let me tell you Jman...this one girl let me ****** her ***** and then we ***** my ******, after we ****** for about ***** and then I wanted to ******** ******** and she ******* ** ****** car battery ****** ******* with a 9 iron, and then we went to breakfast.....:oldrazz:

YfDgajSoI3s

[Marx]

Then they should tell soldiers that heterosexuality is unacceptable, and they should kick out straight soldiers for discussing their sexual preferences, which happens all the time.

But seriously, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to reveal who they are? Why can't they serve openly? Just because bigots think it's icky two men have sex with another, doesn't mean an entire class of people deserves to be oppressed.

That's the most idiotic reason you can give. That proves DADT is discrimination in its finest form. You're telling folks their behavior is unacceptable, even though heterosexual soldiers are allowed to discuss their personal lives in as much vivid detail. It's a disgusting disgrace.

You can say that again Jman!

[Marx]

Then they should tell soldiers that heterosexuality is unacceptable, and they should kick out straight soldiers for discussing their sexual preferences, which happens all the time.

But seriously, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to reveal who they are? Why can't they serve openly? Just because bigots think it's icky two men have sex with another, doesn't mean an entire class of people deserves to be oppressed.

That's the most idiotic reason you can give. That proves DADT is discrimination in its finest form. You're telling folks their behavior is unacceptable, even though heterosexual soldiers are allowed to discuss their personal lives in as much vivid detail. It's a disgusting disgrace.

You can say that again Jman!

[Marx]

Then they should tell soldiers that heterosexuality is unacceptable, and they should kick out straight soldiers for discussing their sexual preferences, which happens all the time.

But seriously, why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to reveal who they are? Why can't they serve openly? Just because bigots think it's icky two men have sex with another, doesn't mean an entire class of people deserves to be oppressed.

That's the most idiotic reason you can give. That proves DADT is discrimination in its finest form. You're telling folks their behavior is unacceptable, even though heterosexual soldiers are allowed to discuss their personal lives in as much vivid detail. It's a disgusting disgrace.

You can say that again Jman!

[The Senator]

You guys cannot judge how the over-all impact would be just based on your personal experiences. The genie is till in the bottle.

I'm sorry, but you haven't served this country. I'll take the word of BL, SuBe, my own father, and numerous others over the word of some Bible-thumping stranger who thinks its perfectly acceptable for the U.S. military to discriminate against a group of people because they are in love with members of their own sex. There are excellent, high-ranking soldiers in the military who are being forced to resign only because they are gay. They have spent years serving this country. They are strategists, front line gunmen-- these are people who have significant knowledge about the jobs they are forced to do, yet they are given the boot because of a disagreement over their personal life.

That's idiotic.

That's the only policy which discriminates against aspects of a soldier's personal life, in terms of relationships.

The military has a history of discrimination. They've discriminated against soldiers based on sexual preference, religious preference, and, for the first half of our nation's history, race.

I'm not surprised DADT still exists. But you know what, people shouldn't be told they can't serve our country honorably because of aspects of their personal lives. It's downright draconian.

When is the military going to grow up? When are they going to realize that having soldiers willing to defend this country is more important than whether two men or two women engage in "icky" sex?

This is why this country disappoints me on a regular basis. It feels like its being run by a bunch of immature, prepubescent boys. What a disgrace :down:

[The Senator]

You guys cannot judge how the over-all impact would be just based on your personal experiences. The genie is till in the bottle.

I'm sorry, but you haven't served this country. I'll take the word of BL, SuBe, my own father, and numerous others over the word of some Bible-thumping stranger who thinks its perfectly acceptable for the U.S. military to discriminate against a group of people because they are in love with members of their own sex. There are excellent, high-ranking soldiers in the military who are being forced to resign only because they are gay. They have spent years serving this country. They are strategists, front line gunmen-- these are people who have significant knowledge about the jobs they are forced to do, yet they are given the boot because of a disagreement over their personal life.

That's idiotic.

That's the only policy which discriminates against aspects of a soldier's personal life, in terms of relationships.

The military has a history of discrimination. They've discriminated against soldiers based on sexual preference, religious preference, and, for the first half of our nation's history, race.

I'm not surprised DADT still exists. But you know what, people shouldn't be told they can't serve our country honorably because of aspects of their personal lives. It's downright draconian.

When is the military going to grow up? When are they going to realize that having soldiers willing to defend this country is more important than whether two men or two women engage in "icky" sex?

This is why this country disappoints me on a regular basis. It feels like its being run by a bunch of immature, prepubescent boys. What a disgrace :down:

[The Senator]

You guys cannot judge how the over-all impact would be just based on your personal experiences. The genie is till in the bottle.

I'm sorry, but you haven't served this country. I'll take the word of BL, SuBe, my own father, and numerous others over the word of some Bible-thumping stranger who thinks its perfectly acceptable for the U.S. military to discriminate against a group of people because they are in love with members of their own sex. There are excellent, high-ranking soldiers in the military who are being forced to resign only because they are gay. They have spent years serving this country. They are strategists, front line gunmen-- these are people who have significant knowledge about the jobs they are forced to do, yet they are given the boot because of a disagreement over their personal life.

That's idiotic.

That's the only policy which discriminates against aspects of a soldier's personal life, in terms of relationships.

The military has a history of discrimination. They've discriminated against soldiers based on sexual preference, religious preference, and, for the first half of our nation's history, race.

I'm not surprised DADT still exists. But you know what, people shouldn't be told they can't serve our country honorably because of aspects of their personal lives. It's downright draconian.

When is the military going to grow up? When are they going to realize that having soldiers willing to defend this country is more important than whether two men or two women engage in "icky" sex?

This is why this country disappoints me on a regular basis. It feels like its being run by a bunch of immature, prepubescent boys. What a disgrace :down:

[BlackLantern]

Since 2001, the United States Military has ejected thousands of qualified well trained personnel simply because they were homosexual...

[BlackLantern]

Since 2001, the United States Military has ejected thousands of qualified well trained personnel simply because they were homosexual...

[BlackLantern]

Since 2001, the United States Military has ejected thousands of qualified well trained personnel simply because they were homosexual...

[Marx]

Since 2001, the United States Military has ejected thousands of qualified well trained personnel simply because they were homosexual...

Sounds pretty ignorant to me BL...

[Marx]

Since 2001, the United States Military has ejected thousands of qualified well trained personnel simply because they were homosexual...

Sounds pretty ignorant to me BL...

[Marx]

Since 2001, the United States Military has ejected thousands of qualified well trained personnel simply because they were homosexual...

Sounds pretty ignorant to me BL...

[lazur]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

[lazur]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

[lazur]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

[The Senator]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

Except not all gay men act that way.

And if any gay soldier does act that way, you can charge him with sexual harassment, which I'm sure would result in their eventual discharge. It's the same thing if a male soldier makes a lewd remark or sexual advancements towards a female soldier.

There's no need for special accommodations. If someone does something which goes against military rules, then that should be dealt with like any other case. No one deserves to be treated differently because of his or her sexual orientation.

[The Senator]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

Except not all gay men act that way.

And if any gay soldier does act that way, you can charge him with sexual harassment, which I'm sure would result in their eventual discharge. It's the same thing if a male soldier makes a lewd remark or sexual advancements towards a female soldier.

There's no need for special accommodations. If someone does something which goes against military rules, then that should be dealt with like any other case. No one deserves to be treated differently because of his or her sexual orientation.

[The Senator]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

Except not all gay men act that way.

And if any gay soldier does act that way, you can charge him with sexual harassment, which I'm sure would result in their eventual discharge. It's the same thing if a male soldier makes a lewd remark or sexual advancements towards a female soldier.

There's no need for special accommodations. If someone does something which goes against military rules, then that should be dealt with like any other case. No one deserves to be treated differently because of his or her sexual orientation.

[souvlaki]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

Well, that's flat out sexual harassment, and it works both ways. I'd wager the sexual harassment rate of guys harassing girls is probably significantly higher in the military than guys harassing guys. The guy should have been turned in. But as JMan said, not every gay person does that, and I'm sure that is very much the exception to the rule in the military.

[souvlaki]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

Well, that's flat out sexual harassment, and it works both ways. I'd wager the sexual harassment rate of guys harassing girls is probably significantly higher in the military than guys harassing guys. The guy should have been turned in. But as JMan said, not every gay person does that, and I'm sure that is very much the exception to the rule in the military.

[souvlaki]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

Well, that's flat out sexual harassment, and it works both ways. I'd wager the sexual harassment rate of guys harassing girls is probably significantly higher in the military than guys harassing guys. The guy should have been turned in. But as JMan said, not every gay person does that, and I'm sure that is very much the exception to the rule in the military.

[Marx]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

That is an issue of sexual harassment...and should be treated just like any other case of sexual harassment.

[Marx]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

That is an issue of sexual harassment...and should be treated just like any other case of sexual harassment.

[Marx]

I have no problems whatsoever with gays serving in the military. But protections for both gays and straights must be put into place to make it work.

For example, it's one thing to work side by side with someone who may be attracted to you personally. It's completely another to share personal space with that person UNLESS that person is able to control his or her sexual urges.

When I was in the Air Force, I had to share my personal space (showers, lockers, etc) with two gay guys. One of them was there to do a job and never allowed his sexual orientation to play a role in how he conducted himself in the personal space of others. The other gay guy, however, was constantly making lewd remarks to other guys (nice ass, well hung, etc) and it got to the point where people became very uncomfortable being in any state of undress around the guy. He was a nice guy, which made it even more difficult because no one wanted to turn him in (if we did, he would have been kicked out), but we did have a very stern 'talking to' with this guy and told him to back off or we'd first give him a GI Party and then we'd turn him in and get him kicked out. He backed off very quickly.

Point being - it isn't all roses and ice cream. Some things, and some other points of view, have to be considered, and, if necessary, certain accomodations need to be made to ensure that the military continues to operate efficiently and that its members can do their jobs without literally having to watch their own asses.

That is an issue of sexual harassment...and should be treated just like any other case of sexual harassment.

[Mr Sparkle]

What the hell difference does it make? Seriously? If you're in a life or death situation and you're more worried about some guy buggering you in your sleep or something, you need to sort out your priorities.

Then again, it all comes back to the bigoted assumption that all gay people want to do is **** you.

well the best policy would be if NO ONE gets to talk about anything sexual , since like Celldog said to him sex is "veeeeeery personal" so, no one needs to know about your wife or children, maybe someone doesn't like sex at all and you're making him all uncomfortable, so since Celldog thinks that sex is indeed personal, neither straight nor gay people in the military should be allowed to talk about it.

makes perfect sense right?:huh:

[Mr Sparkle]

What the hell difference does it make? Seriously? If you're in a life or death situation and you're more worried about some guy buggering you in your sleep or something, you need to sort out your priorities.

Then again, it all comes back to the bigoted assumption that all gay people want to do is **** you.

well the best policy would be if NO ONE gets to talk about anything sexual , since like Celldog said to him sex is "veeeeeery personal" so, no one needs to know about your wife or children, maybe someone doesn't like sex at all and you're making him all uncomfortable, so since Celldog thinks that sex is indeed personal, neither straight nor gay people in the military should be allowed to talk about it.

makes perfect sense right?:huh:

[Mr Sparkle]

What the hell difference does it make? Seriously? If you're in a life or death situation and you're more worried about some guy buggering you in your sleep or something, you need to sort out your priorities.

Then again, it all comes back to the bigoted assumption that all gay people want to do is **** you.

well the best policy would be if NO ONE gets to talk about anything sexual , since like Celldog said to him sex is "veeeeeery personal" so, no one needs to know about your wife or children, maybe someone doesn't like sex at all and you're making him all uncomfortable, so since Celldog thinks that sex is indeed personal, neither straight nor gay people in the military should be allowed to talk about it.

makes perfect sense right?:huh:

[lazur]

Well, that's flat out sexual harassment, and it works both ways. I'd wager the sexual harassment rate of guys harassing girls is probably significantly higher in the military than guys harassing guys. The guy should have been turned in. But as JMan said, not every gay person does that, and I'm sure that is very much the exception to the rule in the military.

True, but you don't have co-ed showers in the military. I don't care if the guy standing next to me thinks I have a nice ass, but the moment he outwardly indicates in any way that he thinks I have a nice ass, it creates a situation where even in my own personal space, I don't have peace.

That to me is the real issue.

And you're right, it is sexual harassment - but it's also a form of sexual harassment that would *never* occur were it not for allowing gays in the military, so concessions should be made, imo.

[lazur]

Well, that's flat out sexual harassment, and it works both ways. I'd wager the sexual harassment rate of guys harassing girls is probably significantly higher in the military than guys harassing guys. The guy should have been turned in. But as JMan said, not every gay person does that, and I'm sure that is very much the exception to the rule in the military.

True, but you don't have co-ed showers in the military. I don't care if the guy standing next to me thinks I have a nice ass, but the moment he outwardly indicates in any way that he thinks I have a nice ass, it creates a situation where even in my own personal space, I don't have peace.

That to me is the real issue.

And you're right, it is sexual harassment - but it's also a form of sexual harassment that would *never* occur were it not for allowing gays in the military, so concessions should be made, imo.

[lazur]

Well, that's flat out sexual harassment, and it works both ways. I'd wager the sexual harassment rate of guys harassing girls is probably significantly higher in the military than guys harassing guys. The guy should have been turned in. But as JMan said, not every gay person does that, and I'm sure that is very much the exception to the rule in the military.

True, but you don't have co-ed showers in the military. I don't care if the guy standing next to me thinks I have a nice ass, but the moment he outwardly indicates in any way that he thinks I have a nice ass, it creates a situation where even in my own personal space, I don't have peace.

That to me is the real issue.

And you're right, it is sexual harassment - but it's also a form of sexual harassment that would *never* occur were it not for allowing gays in the military, so concessions should be made, imo.

[souvlaki]

True, but you don't have co-ed showers in the military. I don't care if the guy standing next to me thinks I have a nice ass, but the moment he outwardly indicates in any way that he thinks I have a nice ass, it creates a situation where even in my own personal space, I don't have peace.

That to me is the real issue.

And you're right, it is sexual harassment - but it's also a form of sexual harassment that would *never* occur were it not for allowing gays in the military.

People deal with sexual harassment in the workplace everywhere. Gay men that sexually harass other men in the service should be dealt with like they are dealt with anywhere else. But to deny them the right to serve in the military because one guy is an idiot, gay or straight, is absurd. Basically, your argument is because there are a few gay guys in the service that cant control their urges, let's punish all of them.

Well, crap man... let's just completely segregate the work place across the country, not let men work with women, and not let straight people work with gay people on the off chance that sexual harassment occurs. Or we can punish each on an individual basis depending on the circumstances. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

[souvlaki]

True, but you don't have co-ed showers in the military. I don't care if the guy standing next to me thinks I have a nice ass, but the moment he outwardly indicates in any way that he thinks I have a nice ass, it creates a situation where even in my own personal space, I don't have peace.

That to me is the real issue.

And you're right, it is sexual harassment - but it's also a form of sexual harassment that would *never* occur were it not for allowing gays in the military.

People deal with sexual harassment in the workplace everywhere. Gay men that sexually harass other men in the service should be dealt with like they are dealt with anywhere else. But to deny them the right to serve in the military because one guy is an idiot, gay or straight, is absurd. Basically, your argument is because there are a few gay guys in the service that cant control their urges, let's punish all of them.

Well, crap man... let's just completely segregate the work place across the country, not let men work with women, and not let straight people work with gay people on the off chance that sexual harassment occurs. Or we can punish each on an individual basis depending on the circumstances. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

[souvlaki]

True, but you don't have co-ed showers in the military. I don't care if the guy standing next to me thinks I have a nice ass, but the moment he outwardly indicates in any way that he thinks I have a nice ass, it creates a situation where even in my own personal space, I don't have peace.

That to me is the real issue.

And you're right, it is sexual harassment - but it's also a form of sexual harassment that would *never* occur were it not for allowing gays in the military.

People deal with sexual harassment in the workplace everywhere. Gay men that sexually harass other men in the service should be dealt with like they are dealt with anywhere else. But to deny them the right to serve in the military because one guy is an idiot, gay or straight, is absurd. Basically, your argument is because there are a few gay guys in the service that cant control their urges, let's punish all of them.

Well, crap man... let's just completely segregate the work place across the country, not let men work with women, and not let straight people work with gay people on the off chance that sexual harassment occurs. Or we can punish each on an individual basis depending on the circumstances. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

[Marx]

People deal with sexual harassment in the workplace everywhere. Gay men that sexually harass other men in the service should be dealt with like they are dealt with anywhere else. But to deny them the right to serve in the military because one guy is an idiot, gay or straight, is absurd. Basically, your argument is because there are a few gay guys in the service that cant control their urges, let's punish all of them.

Well, crap man... let's just completely segregate the work place across the country, not let men work with women, and not let straight people work with gay people on the off chance that sexual harassment occurs. Or we can punish each on an individual basis depending on the circumstances. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

You couldn't be more right Souv! This is ridiculous.

[Marx]

People deal with sexual harassment in the workplace everywhere. Gay men that sexually harass other men in the service should be dealt with like they are dealt with anywhere else. But to deny them the right to serve in the military because one guy is an idiot, gay or straight, is absurd. Basically, your argument is because there are a few gay guys in the service that cant control their urges, let's punish all of them.

Well, crap man... let's just completely segregate the work place across the country, not let men work with women, and not let straight people work with gay people on the off chance that sexual harassment occurs. Or we can punish each on an individual basis depending on the circumstances. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

You couldn't be more right Souv! This is ridiculous.

[Marx]

People deal with sexual harassment in the workplace everywhere. Gay men that sexually harass other men in the service should be dealt with like they are dealt with anywhere else. But to deny them the right to serve in the military because one guy is an idiot, gay or straight, is absurd. Basically, your argument is because there are a few gay guys in the service that cant control their urges, let's punish all of them.

Well, crap man... let's just completely segregate the work place across the country, not let men work with women, and not let straight people work with gay people on the off chance that sexual harassment occurs. Or we can punish each on an individual basis depending on the circumstances. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

You couldn't be more right Souv! This is ridiculous.

[The Senator]

True, but you don't have co-ed showers in the military. I don't care if the guy standing next to me thinks I have a nice ass, but the moment he outwardly indicates in any way that he thinks I have a nice ass, it creates a situation where even in my own personal space, I don't have peace.

That to me is the real issue.

And you're right, it is sexual harassment - but it's also a form of sexual harassment that would *never* occur were it not for allowing gays in the military, so concessions should be made, imo.

When I was in high school, several male classmates used to pinch the ass of a gay kid. They would dare each other to do so.

Several of them were eventually written up for sexual harassment and suspended for three days from school. They didn't kick them out because they were acting gay, but because they were disturbing the peace. And when they returned, they weren't put in a special classroom, with their index fingers in a finger-trap to prevent them from pinching any more asses.

I don't see why one's disagreement with another's sexual preference should have anything to do with military policy. Grow up and get over it. You are there to defend this country-- not to piss and moan because another man may find himself attracted to his male colleagues.

All you have to do is set the ground rules. And if those ground rules are infringed upon, then its sexual harassment, plain and simple. There's no need for special concessions.

Seriously, for people who are supposed to be defending this country, many certainly act like a bunch of whining babies. I find it sad when a bunch of queers are willing to muster up and sacrifice their lives on the front lines, while their colleagues sit around whining about taking a shower and sleeping near them. It's just... pathetic.

[The Senator]

True, but you don't have co-ed showers in the military. I don't care if the guy standing next to me thinks I have a nice ass, but the moment he outwardly indicates in any way that he thinks I have a nice ass, it creates a situation where even in my own personal space, I don't have peace.

That to me is the real issue.

And you're right, it is sexual harassment - but it's also a form of sexual harassment that would *never* occur were it not for allowing gays in the military, so concessions should be made, imo.

When I was in high school, several male classmates used to pinch the ass of a gay kid. They would dare each other to do so.

Several of them were eventually written up for sexual harassment and suspended for three days from school. They didn't kick them out because they were acting gay, but because they were disturbing the peace. And when they returned, they weren't put in a special classroom, with their index fingers in a finger-trap to prevent them from pinching any more asses.

I don't see why one's disagreement with another's sexual preference should have anything to do with military policy. Grow up and get over it. You are there to defend this country-- not to piss and moan because another man may find himself attracted to his male colleagues.

All you have to do is set the ground rules. And if those ground rules are infringed upon, then its sexual harassment, plain and simple. There's no need for special concessions.

Seriously, for people who are supposed to be defending this country, many certainly act like a bunch of whining babies. I find it sad when a bunch of queers are willing to muster up and sacrifice their lives on the front lines, while their colleagues sit around whining about taking a shower and sleeping near them. It's just... pathetic.

[The Senator]

True, but you don't have co-ed showers in the military. I don't care if the guy standing next to me thinks I have a nice ass, but the moment he outwardly indicates in any way that he thinks I have a nice ass, it creates a situation where even in my own personal space, I don't have peace.

That to me is the real issue.

And you're right, it is sexual harassment - but it's also a form of sexual harassment that would *never* occur were it not for allowing gays in the military, so concessions should be made, imo.

When I was in high school, several male classmates used to pinch the ass of a gay kid. They would dare each other to do so.

Several of them were eventually written up for sexual harassment and suspended for three days from school. They didn't kick them out because they were acting gay, but because they were disturbing the peace. And when they returned, they weren't put in a special classroom, with their index fingers in a finger-trap to prevent them from pinching any more asses.

I don't see why one's disagreement with another's sexual preference should have anything to do with military policy. Grow up and get over it. You are there to defend this country-- not to piss and moan because another man may find himself attracted to his male colleagues.

All you have to do is set the ground rules. And if those ground rules are infringed upon, then its sexual harassment, plain and simple. There's no need for special concessions.

Seriously, for people who are supposed to be defending this country, many certainly act like a bunch of whining babies. I find it sad when a bunch of queers are willing to muster up and sacrifice their lives on the front lines, while their colleagues sit around whining about taking a shower and sleeping near them. It's just... pathetic.

[hippie_hunter]

I fully support this ruling, hopefully "Don't ask, don't tell" will be gotten rid of. That said, my father who is in the Navy does support it.

[hippie_hunter]

I fully support this ruling, hopefully "Don't ask, don't tell" will be gotten rid of. That said, my father who is in the Navy does support it.

[hippie_hunter]

I fully support this ruling, hopefully "Don't ask, don't tell" will be gotten rid of. That said, my father who is in the Navy does support it.

[lazur]

People deal with sexual harassment in the workplace everywhere. Gay men that sexually harass other men in the service should be dealt with like they are dealt with anywhere else. But to deny them the right to serve in the military because one guy is an idiot, gay or straight, is absurd. Basically, your argument is because there are a few gay guys in the service that cant control their urges, let's punish all of them.

Well, crap man... let's just completely segregate the work place across the country, not let men work with women, and not let straight people work with gay people on the off chance that sexual harassment occurs. Or we can punish each on an individual basis depending on the circumstances. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.

Again, next time read my opinion before jumping to conclusions and making ridiculous accusations (ie "you don't want gays in the military!")

And thanks in advance for doing so.

[lazur]

People deal with sexual harassment in the workplace everywhere. Gay men that sexually harass other men in the service should be dealt with like they are dealt with anywhere else. But to deny them the right to serve in the military because one guy is an idiot, gay or straight, is absurd. Basically, your argument is because there are a few gay guys in the service that cant control their urges, let's punish all of them.

Well, crap man... let's just completely segregate the work place across the country, not let men work with women, and not let straight people work with gay people on the off chance that sexual harassment occurs. Or we can punish each on an individual basis depending on the circumstances. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.

Again, next time read my opinion before jumping to conclusions and making ridiculous accusations (ie "you don't want gays in the military!")

And thanks in advance for doing so.

[lazur]

People deal with sexual harassment in the workplace everywhere. Gay men that sexually harass other men in the service should be dealt with like they are dealt with anywhere else. But to deny them the right to serve in the military because one guy is an idiot, gay or straight, is absurd. Basically, your argument is because there are a few gay guys in the service that cant control their urges, let's punish all of them.

Well, crap man... let's just completely segregate the work place across the country, not let men work with women, and not let straight people work with gay people on the off chance that sexual harassment occurs. Or we can punish each on an individual basis depending on the circumstances. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.

Again, next time read my opinion before jumping to conclusions and making ridiculous accusations (ie "you don't want gays in the military!")

And thanks in advance for doing so.

[lazur]

When I was in high school, several male classmates used to pinch the ass of a gay kid. They would dare each other to do so.

Several of them were eventually written up for sexual harassment and suspended for three days from school. They didn't kick them out because they were acting gay, but because they were disturbing the peace. And when they returned, they weren't put in a special classroom, with their index fingers in a finger-trap to prevent them from pinching any more asses.

I don't see why one's disagreement with another's sexual preference should have anything to do with military policy. Grow up and get over it. You are there to defend this country-- not to piss and moan because another man may find himself attracted to his male colleagues.

All you have to do is set the ground rules. And if those ground rules are infringed upon, then its sexual harassment, plain and simple. There's no need for special concessions.

Seriously, for people who are supposed to be defending this country, many certainly act like a bunch of whining babies. I find it sad when a bunch of queers are willing to muster up and sacrifice their lives on the front lines, while their colleagues sit around whining about taking a shower and sleeping near them. It's just... pathetic.

You're being obtuse. RE-READ MY FIRST POST and get off your effing high horse. Thanks.

[lazur]

When I was in high school, several male classmates used to pinch the ass of a gay kid. They would dare each other to do so.

Several of them were eventually written up for sexual harassment and suspended for three days from school. They didn't kick them out because they were acting gay, but because they were disturbing the peace. And when they returned, they weren't put in a special classroom, with their index fingers in a finger-trap to prevent them from pinching any more asses.

I don't see why one's disagreement with another's sexual preference should have anything to do with military policy. Grow up and get over it. You are there to defend this country-- not to piss and moan because another man may find himself attracted to his male colleagues.

All you have to do is set the ground rules. And if those ground rules are infringed upon, then its sexual harassment, plain and simple. There's no need for special concessions.

Seriously, for people who are supposed to be defending this country, many certainly act like a bunch of whining babies. I find it sad when a bunch of queers are willing to muster up and sacrifice their lives on the front lines, while their colleagues sit around whining about taking a shower and sleeping near them. It's just... pathetic.

You're being obtuse. RE-READ MY FIRST POST and get off your effing high horse. Thanks.

[lazur]

When I was in high school, several male classmates used to pinch the ass of a gay kid. They would dare each other to do so.

Several of them were eventually written up for sexual harassment and suspended for three days from school. They didn't kick them out because they were acting gay, but because they were disturbing the peace. And when they returned, they weren't put in a special classroom, with their index fingers in a finger-trap to prevent them from pinching any more asses.

I don't see why one's disagreement with another's sexual preference should have anything to do with military policy. Grow up and get over it. You are there to defend this country-- not to piss and moan because another man may find himself attracted to his male colleagues.

All you have to do is set the ground rules. And if those ground rules are infringed upon, then its sexual harassment, plain and simple. There's no need for special concessions.

Seriously, for people who are supposed to be defending this country, many certainly act like a bunch of whining babies. I find it sad when a bunch of queers are willing to muster up and sacrifice their lives on the front lines, while their colleagues sit around whining about taking a shower and sleeping near them. It's just... pathetic.

You're being obtuse. RE-READ MY FIRST POST and get off your effing high horse. Thanks.

[The Senator]

You're being obtuse. RE-READ MY FIRST POST and get off your effing high horse. Thanks.

I read your first post, thanks, and I responded to the idiotic things you wrote about making "special accommodations." Maybe you should THINK about how CHILDISH such things are, such as "I don't know if I want to shower with gay men looking at my ass." Seriously. Just THINK about how outlandish that is, for one moment, and how that reflects on what you have to say.

Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.

Those "accommodations" would only ensure that the military continues to discriminate against openly gay homosexuals. Yeah, they'd be allowed to serve openly; but if a soldier has a problem with gay men, because he thinks gay sex is "icky" or is afraid he's going to get raped in his sleep, that basically means that those gay soldiers would have to be "re-accommodated" to ensure that such actions don't happen.

That's still discrimination. That's still telling gays that they can't openly serve. And it's an ignorant policy, if you ask me.

If a soldier was against serving with a Muslim because he was afraid that soldier would call Jihad on his unit, should the military provide "special accommodations" for those two soldiers? If a soldier doesn't want to serve besides a black man, should "special accommodations" be put in place to relieve the concerns of that soldier?

Seriously-- these soldiers need to grow up. This isn't the sixth grade. And I reiterate my belief that it's a pathetic argument, and a real slap in the face to all those stereotypes that gay men can't be manly. Obviously, if some people are willing to whine and cry about gays serving in their unit, then gay folks aren't the only ones lacking manliness.

[The Senator]

You're being obtuse. RE-READ MY FIRST POST and get off your effing high horse. Thanks.

I read your first post, thanks, and I responded to the idiotic things you wrote about making "special accommodations." Maybe you should THINK about how CHILDISH such things are, such as "I don't know if I want to shower with gay men looking at my ass." Seriously. Just THINK about how outlandish that is, for one moment, and how that reflects on what you have to say.

Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.

Those "accommodations" would only ensure that the military continues to discriminate against openly gay homosexuals. Yeah, they'd be allowed to serve openly; but if a soldier has a problem with gay men, because he thinks gay sex is "icky" or is afraid he's going to get raped in his sleep, that basically means that those gay soldiers would have to be "re-accommodated" to ensure that such actions don't happen.

That's still discrimination. That's still telling gays that they can't openly serve. And it's an ignorant policy, if you ask me.

If a soldier was against serving with a Muslim because he was afraid that soldier would call Jihad on his unit, should the military provide "special accommodations" for those two soldiers? If a soldier doesn't want to serve besides a black man, should "special accommodations" be put in place to relieve the concerns of that soldier?

Seriously-- these soldiers need to grow up. This isn't the sixth grade. And I reiterate my belief that it's a pathetic argument, and a real slap in the face to all those stereotypes that gay men can't be manly. Obviously, if some people are willing to whine and cry about gays serving in their unit, then gay folks aren't the only ones lacking manliness.

[The Senator]

You're being obtuse. RE-READ MY FIRST POST and get off your effing high horse. Thanks.

I read your first post, thanks, and I responded to the idiotic things you wrote about making "special accommodations." Maybe you should THINK about how CHILDISH such things are, such as "I don't know if I want to shower with gay men looking at my ass." Seriously. Just THINK about how outlandish that is, for one moment, and how that reflects on what you have to say.

Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.

Those "accommodations" would only ensure that the military continues to discriminate against openly gay homosexuals. Yeah, they'd be allowed to serve openly; but if a soldier has a problem with gay men, because he thinks gay sex is "icky" or is afraid he's going to get raped in his sleep, that basically means that those gay soldiers would have to be "re-accommodated" to ensure that such actions don't happen.

That's still discrimination. That's still telling gays that they can't openly serve. And it's an ignorant policy, if you ask me.

If a soldier was against serving with a Muslim because he was afraid that soldier would call Jihad on his unit, should the military provide "special accommodations" for those two soldiers? If a soldier doesn't want to serve besides a black man, should "special accommodations" be put in place to relieve the concerns of that soldier?

Seriously-- these soldiers need to grow up. This isn't the sixth grade. And I reiterate my belief that it's a pathetic argument, and a real slap in the face to all those stereotypes that gay men can't be manly. Obviously, if some people are willing to whine and cry about gays serving in their unit, then gay folks aren't the only ones lacking manliness.

[Marx]

Seriously-- these soldiers need to grow up. This isn't the sixth grade. And I reiterate my belief that it's a pathetic argument, and a real slap in the face to all those stereotypes that gay men can't be manly. Obviously, if some people are willing to whine and cry about gays serving in their unit, then gay folks aren't the only ones lacking manliness.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Marx]

Seriously-- these soldiers need to grow up. This isn't the sixth grade. And I reiterate my belief that it's a pathetic argument, and a real slap in the face to all those stereotypes that gay men can't be manly. Obviously, if some people are willing to whine and cry about gays serving in their unit, then gay folks aren't the only ones lacking manliness.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Marx]

Seriously-- these soldiers need to grow up. This isn't the sixth grade. And I reiterate my belief that it's a pathetic argument, and a real slap in the face to all those stereotypes that gay men can't be manly. Obviously, if some people are willing to whine and cry about gays serving in their unit, then gay folks aren't the only ones lacking manliness.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[lazur]

I read your first post, thanks, and I responded to the idiotic things you wrote about making "special accommodations." Maybe you should THINK about how CHILDISH such things are, such as "I don't know if I want to shower with gay men looking at my ass." Seriously. Just THINK about how outlandish that is, for one moment, and how that reflects on what you have to say.



Those "accommodations" would only ensure that the military continues to discriminate against openly gay homosexuals. Yeah, they'd be allowed to serve openly; but if a soldier has a problem with gay men, because he thinks gay sex is "icky" or is afraid he's going to get raped in his sleep, that basically means that those gay soldiers would have to be "re-accommodated" to ensure that such actions don't happen.

That's still discrimination. That's still telling gays that they can't openly serve. And it's an ignorant policy, if you ask me.

If a soldier was against serving with a Muslim because he was afraid that soldier would call Jihad on his unit, should the military provide "special accommodations" for those two soldiers? If a soldier doesn't want to serve besides a black man, should "special accommodations" be put in place to relieve the concerns of that soldier?

Seriously-- these soldiers need to grow up. This isn't the sixth grade. And I reiterate my belief that it's a pathetic argument, and a real slap in the face to all those stereotypes that gay men can't be manly. Obviously, if some people are willing to whine and cry about gays serving in their unit, then gay folks aren't the only ones lacking manliness.

First, you're openly comparing race to sexual orientation - not an argument I buy into or could ever adopt. The two are not the same, period.

Second, by your logic, the military should have co-ed dorms, showers and restroom facilities. If that's not the case, then explain to me what the difference is between a straight man rooming with a straight woman in the military, and a gay man rooming with a straight man in the military. For the purpose of this debate, assume that the straight woman isn't attracted to the straight man, but that the straight man IS attracted to the straight woman.

Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation, or is it that you believe men and women SHOULD be showering together despite what may happen as a result?

[lazur]

I read your first post, thanks, and I responded to the idiotic things you wrote about making "special accommodations." Maybe you should THINK about how CHILDISH such things are, such as "I don't know if I want to shower with gay men looking at my ass." Seriously. Just THINK about how outlandish that is, for one moment, and how that reflects on what you have to say.



Those "accommodations" would only ensure that the military continues to discriminate against openly gay homosexuals. Yeah, they'd be allowed to serve openly; but if a soldier has a problem with gay men, because he thinks gay sex is "icky" or is afraid he's going to get raped in his sleep, that basically means that those gay soldiers would have to be "re-accommodated" to ensure that such actions don't happen.

That's still discrimination. That's still telling gays that they can't openly serve. And it's an ignorant policy, if you ask me.

If a soldier was against serving with a Muslim because he was afraid that soldier would call Jihad on his unit, should the military provide "special accommodations" for those two soldiers? If a soldier doesn't want to serve besides a black man, should "special accommodations" be put in place to relieve the concerns of that soldier?

Seriously-- these soldiers need to grow up. This isn't the sixth grade. And I reiterate my belief that it's a pathetic argument, and a real slap in the face to all those stereotypes that gay men can't be manly. Obviously, if some people are willing to whine and cry about gays serving in their unit, then gay folks aren't the only ones lacking manliness.

First, you're openly comparing race to sexual orientation - not an argument I buy into or could ever adopt. The two are not the same, period.

Second, by your logic, the military should have co-ed dorms, showers and restroom facilities. If that's not the case, then explain to me what the difference is between a straight man rooming with a straight woman in the military, and a gay man rooming with a straight man in the military. For the purpose of this debate, assume that the straight woman isn't attracted to the straight man, but that the straight man IS attracted to the straight woman.

Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation, or is it that you believe men and women SHOULD be showering together despite what may happen as a result?

[lazur]

I read your first post, thanks, and I responded to the idiotic things you wrote about making "special accommodations." Maybe you should THINK about how CHILDISH such things are, such as "I don't know if I want to shower with gay men looking at my ass." Seriously. Just THINK about how outlandish that is, for one moment, and how that reflects on what you have to say.



Those "accommodations" would only ensure that the military continues to discriminate against openly gay homosexuals. Yeah, they'd be allowed to serve openly; but if a soldier has a problem with gay men, because he thinks gay sex is "icky" or is afraid he's going to get raped in his sleep, that basically means that those gay soldiers would have to be "re-accommodated" to ensure that such actions don't happen.

That's still discrimination. That's still telling gays that they can't openly serve. And it's an ignorant policy, if you ask me.

If a soldier was against serving with a Muslim because he was afraid that soldier would call Jihad on his unit, should the military provide "special accommodations" for those two soldiers? If a soldier doesn't want to serve besides a black man, should "special accommodations" be put in place to relieve the concerns of that soldier?

Seriously-- these soldiers need to grow up. This isn't the sixth grade. And I reiterate my belief that it's a pathetic argument, and a real slap in the face to all those stereotypes that gay men can't be manly. Obviously, if some people are willing to whine and cry about gays serving in their unit, then gay folks aren't the only ones lacking manliness.

First, you're openly comparing race to sexual orientation - not an argument I buy into or could ever adopt. The two are not the same, period.

Second, by your logic, the military should have co-ed dorms, showers and restroom facilities. If that's not the case, then explain to me what the difference is between a straight man rooming with a straight woman in the military, and a gay man rooming with a straight man in the military. For the purpose of this debate, assume that the straight woman isn't attracted to the straight man, but that the straight man IS attracted to the straight woman.

Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation, or is it that you believe men and women SHOULD be showering together despite what may happen as a result?

[BlackLantern]

Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.

Again, next time read my opinion before jumping to conclusions and making ridiculous accusations (ie "you don't want gays in the military!")

And thanks in advance for doing so.

If people act like mature adults, this shouldn't be a problem...