What a sad, truly sad statement about our homophobic way of thinking!

[Mare Tranquillity]

the whole point was that the military did NOT want to know.

And therein lies the problem, it requires them to hide something that should not need to be hidden. Heterosexuals are not required to hide their orientation--in fact I was just reading an article that said 3/4 of the women serving in the military have been raped at one time or another. I'm guessing that it wasn't gay men doing it. Lesbians either. How about a little of that good ol' American equality?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am all for gays in the military. We all know how militant they are and since they do not believe in God, they have no problem killing the enemy quickly and ruthlessly. And, most of them are in great physical condition too.

Plus with our PC hampered Pentagon, who there is going to court martial a gay soldier who killed too many of the enemy?

One concern - how will gays handle fighting Islam when Islam condones homosexual behavior between men and boys? - See Man Love Thursdays - we could be creating an enemy within. But hey consequences are for losers.

Warning...this is disturbing...
http://www.bouhammer.com/2010/01/and-you-thought-i-was-lying-about-man-love-thursdays/

What a mish-mash of stuff! Homosexual sex is rampant in any place where heterosexual activity is denied to men. Prisons are very much like Islamic countries in their dearth of "normal" heterosexual outlets. You are confusing two separate issues. Most of the "homosexual" men in Islamic countries would be having heterosex if it was available just as men in prison would be. The percentage of real homosexually oriented people is pretty much the same in all the cultures for which we have research on it. Doubting the allegiance of our gay soldiers is just as stupid as doubting the allegiance of our Japanese soldiers in WWII.

And your dig about gays not believing in God is pretty sleazy. Even King David and his homosexual relationship with Jonathon was not condemned in the Bible. It's simple bigotry to condemn others because they don't believe what you believe when in point of fact you have no proof that your interpretation of "God's Will" is any more accurate than anyone else's.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

"Homophobic": A deceptive term invented by gays and their advocates, in an attempt to pretend that a natural dislike of homosexual relations is somehow a "fear" in "misguided" people.

An interesting twist on a definition, Corn. Of course you misused the word "natural" and "advocates" too. Many people have a "natural" dislike for eaters of the dead too, but don't pass laws against them or beat them up on the street. Fear of homosexuality is very common in American men, but much less so in European men. I saw what was done to the gay guys I knew when I was in school, even the straight guys who were just called gay often got the living sh1t beaten out of them. Dislike? I don't think so, it's too hysterical for just dislike, it's fear. And the very worst people are the ones who think they might have some gay or bisexual leanings, they have to be especially brutal so that no one suspects them.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If libs think that what goes on in the home is none of anyone's business, why do they have such a problem with polygamy?

Unless of course, libs think that something in polygamists makes them unfit for military service.

Conservatives support polygamy? Always, Acorn, dogtowner, is that true? I don't recall any of the conservative Congressmen or Senators supporting it, do you? In fact, except for the child molestors in some religious cults, I don't recall ANYONE advocating it.

People call me a liberal but I have stated numerous times that plural marriage has worked well in human cultures, it's even in the Bible. I don't have any problem with it as long as it's confined to consenting adults.

 

[dogtowner]

And therein lies the problem, it requires them to hide something that should not need to be hidden. Heterosexuals are not required to hide their orientation--in fact I was just reading an article that said 3/4 of the women serving in the military have been raped at one time or another. I'm guessing that it wasn't gay men doing it. Lesbians either. How about a little of that good ol' American equality?

From my link above

In a 2006 survey of active-duty troops, 6.8 percent of women and 1.8 percent of men said they had experienced unwanted sexual contact in the previous 12 months. Since there are far more men than women in the services, that translates into roughly 22,000 men and 14,000 women.

Woulda coulda shoulda ? They made the rule for a reason. They can see it unmade if they want.

 

[bododie]

Polygamy, homosexuality, heterosexuality, are all simply sexual preferences. It has nothing to do with politics, except for the fact that libs make the sexual issues important to them political. It should simply follow that if someone loves someone that they should be able to love them openly. Isn't that the lib mantra? The assumption that polygamy must involve child molestation is pretty general, and probably as erroneous. Wow, a couple of girls didn't like being married off. That certainly sums up an entire population.

Of course it doesn't seem to bother libs that teenage girls seem to get pregnant and have children at the same age as the girls libs are assuming are being "molested". I guess the real argument is that polygamists do their thing under the guise of religion, instead of flat out sluttiness. Is that what bothers libs? The REASON and not the result?

The "my baby daddy" mentality doesn't seem to bother libs either. who's certain that none of those unwed mothers weren't impregnated by someone much older? Why is a thirteen year old girl who gets pregnant by someone who knows she won't marry or support her O.K.?It's these kind of assumptions that have caused homosexual love to be critized for so long. I guess it's O.K. for libs to categorize people. Why is that?

The real question is: Which political party in this country gets to define morality and why?

 

[Little-Acorn]

An interesting twist on a definition, Corn.

I thought so too, which is why I pointed out its inaccuracy.

Many people have a "natural" dislike for eaters of the dead too, but don't pass laws against them or beat them up on the street.

Do the eaters of the dead, do it in public and insist that others watch them?

"Homophobic": A deceptive term invented by gays and their advocates, in an attempt to pretend that a natural dislike of homosexual relations is somehow a "fear" in "misguided" people.

Fear of homosexuality is very common in American men,

See? There goes another one.

You ran into a few bullies who turned into a mob with their buddies. How many people who simply disliked the idea of homosexual relations (just as they liked the idea of heterosexual relations) but didn't act on any of that dislike, did you make note of? They are in the vast majority, of course, yet you carefully ignore them.

Learn how to make accurate, COMPLETE observations, before you start telling us what "most people" do.

The fact is, of course, that most people dislike the idea of homosexual relations. No fear involved. My characterization of the disingenuous term "homophobic" was completely accurate, since the gay advocates insist on apllying that term to EVERYONE who dislikes homosexual relations, rather than the very few who actually "fear" something.

 

[Revere]

When you volunteer for the military, you have to hide lots of things, and surrender many individual "rights" that exist in civilian society.

The operative word is "volunteer."

 

[dogtowner]

When you volunteer for the military, you have to hide lots of things, and surrender many individual "rights" that exist in civilian society.

The operative word is "volunteer."

excellent point

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Polygamy, homosexuality, heterosexuality, are all simply sexual preferences. It has nothing to do with politics, except for the fact that libs make the sexual issues important to them political.

Is it your contention that the laws passed against gay people were promulgated and passed by liberals? The laws about child molestation were passed by liberals? Can you support that positon?

It should simply follow that if someone loves someone that they should be able to love them openly. Isn't that the lib mantra?

Only if they are consenting adults, I don't know anyone who advocates allowing child/adult sex to be legalized. Do you?

The assumption that polygamy must involve child molestation is pretty general, and probably as erroneous. Wow, a couple of girls didn't like being married off. That certainly sums up an entire population.

The last group that was in court for this had its first member convicted under US law. No one said that the others would be found guilty nor implied that all polygamists marry underage girls--just the only group that is currently in court is accused of that. I am fine with polygamy involving consenting adults just like they had in the Bible. How about you?

Of course it doesn't seem to bother libs that teenage girls seem to get pregnant and have children at the same age as the girls libs are assuming are being "molested".

Got a real "lib" hardon don't you? Individual underage girls getting pregnant is their choice, underage girls being required to marry older men against their will is a whole different ball game. And just because some girls do dumb stuff doesn't mean that it should be legal for others to force unwilling girls to do likewise.

I guess the real argument is that polygamists do their thing under the guise of religion, instead of flat out sluttiness. Is that what bothers libs? The REASON and not the result?

So what you are arguing is that if some people do something stupid, that it should be legal to force others to do the same thing? Sluttiness is a personal choice rather than a legally sanctioned activity. Can you see the differece?

The "my baby daddy" mentality doesn't seem to bother libs either. who's certain that none of those unwed mothers weren't impregnated by someone much older?

What's your point? Because some girls MAY get impregnated by older men that we should make forced marriages between young girls and older men legal?

Why is a thirteen year old girl who gets pregnant by someone who knows she won't marry or support her O.K.?

Who, besides you, has said it's okay? I don't think it's okay, I support sex ed, abstinence programs, and whatever else we can do to prevent teen motherhood. What makes you think I don't?

It's these kind of assumptions that have caused homosexual love to be critized for so long.

What assumptions are you refering to? Libs are the ones attacking homosexuals? Hello, what planet do you live on? F'ing nutcase Bible-beaters are the ones attacking gays.

I guess it's O.K. for libs to categorize people. Why is that?

It must be because you have done it with amazing inaccuracy in your post. Almost nothing you posted was true.

The real question is: Which political party in this country gets to define morality and why?

Why should any political party be able to define morality? Is there some edict from God that says we have to enforce morality with the laws of some political party?

Beyond outlawing coercion, I see no need to enforce morality at all.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I thnk we can all agree that while Powell was a capable general, he is otherwise an idiot.

Well, this disappointed me when he supported the issue back when the 'homophobic' {hide the gay/lesbian in you while you are in uniform because it means you are less equal then your fellow service person with whom you'll be fighting shoulder to shoulder with to save your back}. Strange that we've finally done away with that 'FEAR' mentality in our police departments but allow the 'homophobic' to be prevalent in our military...really thoughtless and restrictive in our evolution about equality for one & all!

And now he's rethought that issue, really, so he was as wrong about that as he was about the lies that were fed to him about WMD as told to the entire UNITED NATIONS...good grief, how does he find his way to & from his house! LOL

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Originally Posted by bododie
I guess it's O.K. for libs to categorize people. Why is that?

Mare Said: It must be because you have done it with amazing inaccuracy in your post. Almost nothing you posted was true.

And almost nothing that you went on with your diatribe had anything to do with the thread/subject/topic matter about DADT and the attempt to undo that needless/thoughtless military rule...stick to the topic and/or start your own thread about 'smashing/bashing libs and their thought processes'...I'm sure you'll find like minded ilk of Always & ASUR to join you regardless of the heading...TY

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Do the eaters of the dead, do it in public and insist that others watch them?

Yes, it's hard not to see them if one goes out in public or watches TV or movies. Are you saying that homosexuals force others to watch them have sex? More than heterosexuals do?

You ran into a few bullies who turned into a mob with their buddies. How many people who simply disliked the idea of homosexual relations (just as they liked the idea of heterosexual relations) but didn't act on any of that dislike, did you make note of? They are in the vast majority, of course, yet you carefully ignore them.

Every State in the Union had laws against homosexuals at one time, that is not just a "few bullies". Homosexuals have never had, and still do not have equality in this country, that isn't just a few bullies either.

Learn how to make accurate, COMPLETE observations, before you start telling us what "most people" do.

I didn't say "most people," you misquoted me. And it took a large percentage of the American population to pass anti-gay marriage initiatives in more than half the States.

The fact is, of course, that most people dislike the idea of homosexual relations. No fear involved. My characterization of the disingenuous term "homophobic" was completely accurate, since the gay advocates insist on apllying that term to EVERYONE who dislikes homosexual relations, rather than the very few who actually "fear" something.

Fear, hatred, dislike, all of them are correct to some extent. So what? Gay people do not have equality and therein lies the problem.

One of the biggest indicators of fear is the oft-stated cry that gays will corrupt or recruit straight kids--that's an unfounded fear in light of the fact that sexual orientation appears to be an innate quality.

Are you arguing that the "dislike" you say people have for the idea homosexual relations is reason enough to abrogate their Constitutional rights? I have to admit that I don't like the inculcation of children with religious nonsense either, but I don't try to pass laws to prevent it. I don't like killing animals for fun, but I don't beat people up or take away their right to bear arms because of it. Why are you trying to justify the discrimination against gay people because people don't like the "idea" of it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

When you volunteer for the military, you have to hide lots of things, and surrender many individual "rights" that exist in civilian society.

The operative word is "volunteer."

If heterosexuals don't have to hide their sexual orientation, then why do homosexuals? All men are created equal, aren't they?

 

[Revere]

If heterosexuals don't have to hide their sexual orientation, then why do homosexuals? All men are created equal, aren't they?

No, they're not. The military disqualifies some on the basis of physical and psychological criteria.