| Author | Message | ||
     Buellinmke |
Hey Blake - you know who else doesn't like the gays? The Islamo-fascist Muslim man! Haha - your arch-nemesis and you have a lot in common! Maybe you should move to one of their countries so you can all hate the homosexual lifestyle together - we don't need your hate in the land of the free anymore. So, please, for the love of the Baby Jesus - GTFO! | ||
| Midnightrider |
Hey Blake Not going to waste time recounting past arguments and redirecting fire. I think you know my point it's just more fun for you to keep the argument going. I used to work with emotionally disturbed kids. Some of them use the same circuitous debate style you're using now. When they see they can't win on the path they're on, they go off on a tangent and create new little firestorms. The goal is to wear the opponent down, not convince them or change their mind. So I'll not waste much more time on you. I think the days of DADT and the prohibition on homosexuals openly serving in the military are numbered. I think it will be a difficult transition but ultimately I think it is the right thing to do and we'll be better for it in the long run. I have a childish side too. And I will take ENORMOUS pleasure when we move past DADT just knowing how absolutely upset it will make you. Talk to you then Don | ||
| Ourdee |
we were instructed that he was not to take a trip from the 3rd deck of our barracks prior to his discharge I remember not getting the memo once, but it was a different offense (not Homo related), he got a blanket party prior to "jumping" over the rail. The no name people came and collected his belongings. Never saw him again. Don't ask don't tell, worked differently back then. The saying was,"We take care of our own". | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, The security issue is the best argument I've heard so far. Coulter brought it up in her column this week. It's a valid and serious point. Even with a repeal of DADT, the prohibition against sodomy still leaves that door to blackmail WIDE open, and with the targets fully, openly known. Will the next iteration be to declare a DADT policy for sodomy? It isn't funny amigo. So went Rome, so maybe shall America follow, rotted from within by arrogant godless hedonists. I sure hope not. Sean, All but one of the homosexual guys I've met were normal masculine men. Nothing to do with their behavior other than the sex acts is problematic in my view, and apparently the sodomy stuff is officially verboten, so maybe me point is moot after all. Let all the celibate homosexuals come forth and openly serve our great nation! Don (midnightrider) You sure like to talk about me. Again, stick to the issues; if you cannot, then try to muster up the integrity to simply be quiet. Suffice it to say, based on your closing prattle, you don't know me in the slightest. I agree, you ought to stop wasting your time here. Here's some advice: Regardless of the circumstances, deriving pleasure from the upset of others is a really dark miserable way to live. It's not a childish shortcoming; children are rarely so cruel-hearted; rather it reflects a lack of self-esteem. Briefly feeling better about oneself through observation of the downfall or mis-steps of others is emptiness. As far as the DADT issue goes, I could well be mistaken. My point of argument has never waivered as you claim. It has always been fixed upon what is best for our warfighters and warfighting capability, not emotion, not political activism, not crusading for a special interest. I see those traits in your emotion-based arguments and those of others, anyone playing the race analogy or accusing homophobia. The accusations of homophobia are contrived evasions from the serious issue, ad hominem intended to avoid actual issues and cut short thoughtful debate. Very poor form. If you cannot thoughtfully debate serious issues absent personal derision then simply be quiet. >>> Arguments (opposing repeal of DADT) seem to be little more than homophobia and based on fear. Good reading comprehension and a willingness to actually thoughtfully consider opposing viewpoints rather than repeat knee-jerk preconceptions is vital to understanding an opposing point of view. Try it; it opens up a world of learning. Mike, I don't hate anyone, certainly not because they behave in ways that I disapprove, so as usual when you pop in throwing your mean-spirited attacks, you are dead wrong and way out of line. Wolfer, Sorry, that can't have happened; you must be a homophobe. Fear must be corrupting your memory. Maybe he was just trying to get the guy to turn over, you know, so he'd stop snoring. | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
Maybe he was just trying to get the guy to turn over, you know, so he'd stop snoring. I have so many funny things I could say about that.... but my wife would punch me in the back-o-my head... "Honey... it prevents snoring" | ||
| Ourdee |
You'll probably get punched for that.  | ||
| Aesquire |
I don't know all the twisted laws we have about sex. I do know that oral sex is sodomy, in some places, and a guy & a girl can & have been convicted in the last decade. The legal definition seems to change from place to place & year to year. I recall that Texas has odd laws about certain toys. The details of sexual encounters may be interesting, but arguing about what is "wrong", where, with who, is a separate subject than DADT. Besides, if you insist that "x" is against all laws of God And Man, & I've done it and enjoyed it, telling you so may make you not like me even more. ( than baseline "he's crazy" which I assume in any political discussion ) I'll cheerfully admit I like sex. I probably have broken some law left over from the Puritans in more than one state. I'm even proud to have, in theory, offended Queen Victoria...if she was still around and had been informed of my deviancy. ( queen? was she a gay guy? Nope, just brought up in a bad family. ) While I'd like to think I'm all enlightened and free spirited on the subject of sex, and certainly find it hilarious most of the time, I often find myself learning new things. "Teabaggers" as an insult I only knew to be a sexual deal from a cartoon where gamers would press the squat button over a fallen enemy to fake the act. I even mocked someone here for using the term as an insult to tea-partiers, but at the time didn't know it was considered a "gay thing". Probably explains why I misunderstood the reference.  I must laugh at myself. Blackmailing had ( has ) it's own department in Soviet/Russian security service. "Canary Trap" is the term used when you have a hooker who "services" a guy picked up and questioned, or, quite often, trained in espionage prostitution before the encounter with the soon to be blackmailed. The traitor, er, suspected of giving wikileaks the info... well here's the 3rd link down on a google of "wikileaks pfc" http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/nyt-on-wikileaks- pfc-bradley-mannings-troubled-gay-past.html I don't know that he wouldn't have done what he did if he was straight and messed up. Messed up is messed up. Blame the degeneracy of society that treason came easily if you wish. I do. But. "The Closet" ( as a concept, gay, perv, any shame hiding state ) is just too prone to abuse, blackmail, and exploitation in the real world. DADT is by it's nature wrong, dishonorable, and has bad side effects. It should be gone. It's long awaited repeal does have a second part that is arguable. That's the removal of rules against homosexual behavior in the military. That's going to happen, one way or another, even if the Dems have to give up their holy tax increases to get it passed. May even bypass the Senate altogether and get a judge to rule. So I'm rather more interested in the fairness and rationality of the new rules the military must have to keep doing their jobs. | ||
| Aesquire |
Snoring? I gotta use that! | ||
| Kc10_fe |
Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur By SARAH LYALL Published: May 21, 2007 LONDON, May 20 — The officer, a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force, felt he had no choice. So he stood up in front of his squad of 30 to 40 people. “I said, ‘Right, I’ve got something to tell you,’ ” he said. “ ‘I believe that for us to be able to work closely together and have faith in each other, we have to be honest and open and frank. And it has to be a two-way process, and it starts with me baring my soul. You may have heard some rumors, and yes, I have a long-term partner who is a he, not a she.’ ” Far from causing problems, he said, he found that coming out to his troops actually increased the unit’s strength and cohesion. He had felt uneasy keeping the secret “that their boss was a poof,” as he put it, from people he worked with so closely. Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue. The Ministry of Defense does not compile figures on how many gay men and lesbians are openly serving, and it says that the number of people who have come out publicly in the past seven years is still relatively low. But it is clearly proud of how smoothly homosexuals have been integrated and is trying to make life easier for them. “What we’re hoping to do is to, over a period of time, reinforce the message that people who are gay, lesbian and the like are welcomed in the armed forces and we don’t discriminate against them in any way,” a Defense Ministry official said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with the ministry’s practice. Nonetheless, the issue is extremely delicate now. The military does not want to be seen bragging about the success of its policy when the issue can still cause so much anguished debate in the United States. This is particularly true in light of tensions between the allies after a British coroner ruled in March that a British soldier who died four years ago was unlawfully killed by an American pilot. For this article, the Defense Ministry refused to give permission for any member of the forces to be interviewed, either on or off the record. Those who spoke did so before the ministry made its position clear. “We’re not looking to have quotes taken out of context in a way to imply that we’re trying to influence the debate in the United States,” the British official said. “There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we’ve handled it and how it’s gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.” The debate in the United States was rekindled in March when Gen. Peter Pace, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the country’s top-ranking military official, told The Chicago Tribune that he believed that homosexuality was immoral. In January, Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who until his retirement in 1997 held the same post in the Clinton years, when the Pentagon adopted its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, said in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times that he now believed that the military was ready to accept gay men and lesbians. A military already stretched thin, he said, “must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.” At least 24 countries — many of them allies of the United States, and some of them members of the coalition forces fighting alongside Americans — now allow gay soldiers to serve openly in their armed forces. It is hard to avoid comparing the British and American systems, gay soldiers in the British forces say. One major, an openly gay liaison officer in the British Territorial Army, told of an exchange he had in the southern Iraq city of Basra with an American staff sergeant, far from home and eager to confide. “He privately let me know he was gay,” the major said in an interview. “Not in a romantic way, but in a matter-of-fact way. He found it difficult, because he clearly had a whole part of his private life that he had to keep separate and distinct and couldn’t discuss with people. He was in his mid-30s, with no girlfriend and no wife, and he had to use all these white lies.” Some Britons said they could not understand why the United States had not changed its policy. “I find it strange, coming from the land of the free and freedom of speech and democracy, given the changes in the world attitude,” said the gay squadron leader, who recently returned from Afghanistan. “It’s just not the issue it used to be.” Until its policy changed, the British military had deep misgivings about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces. But it had no choice. It was forced to by a European court, which ruled that its policy of excluding homosexuals violated the European Convention on Human Rights. “There was a lot of apprehension among some senior personnel that there would be an increase in things like bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, and some of them were almost predicting that the world was going to come to an end,” the Defense Ministry official said. Similar concerns were raised when, bowing to national antidiscrimination laws, the military began allowing gay personnel who had registered for civil partnerships to live in military housing with their same-sex partners. “But all the problems the services thought were going to come to pass really haven’t materialized,” the official said. To the extent it becomes an issue, it is usually within the context of the relentlessly rough give-and-take that characterizes military life, particularly at the lower ranks, said Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who has studied the British experience. “The military is a proving ground, and the first thing people do is find your weakness and exploit it,” Mr. Frank said in an e-mail interview. “If you’re gay, that’s your weakness, and guys will latch on to that. But frequently this is no more significant a weakness than any other based on your accent, body type, race, religion, etc.” The British military actively recruits gay men and lesbians and punishes any instance of intolerance or bullying. The Royal Navy advertises for recruits in gay magazines and has allowed gay sailors to hold civil partnership ceremonies on board ships and, last summer, to march in full naval uniform at a gay pride rally in London. (British Army and Royal Air Force personnel could march but had to wear civilian clothes.) Speaking at a conference sponsored by the gay advocacy group Stonewall last year, Vice Adm. Adrian Johns, the second sea lord, said that homosexuals had always served in the military but in the past had had to do it secretly. “That’s an unhealthy way to be, to try and keep a secret life in the armed services,” said Admiral Johns, who as the Royal Navy’s principal personnel officer is responsible for about 39,000 sailors. His speech was titled “Reaping the Rewards of a Gay-Friendly Workplace.” “Those individuals need nurturing, so that they give of their best and are, in turn, rewarded for their effort,” he said of the Royal Navy’s gay men and lesbians. “Nurture includes the freedom to be themselves. Our mission is to break down barriers of discrimination, prejudice, fear and misunderstanding.” Once the news is out there, the gay Royal Air Force squadron leader said, the issue gets subsumed by the job at hand and by the relentless immediacy of war. At one point, his squad was working with a British Army unit. “I wouldn’t go into a briefing room and face them and say, ‘By the way, I’m gay,’ ” he said of his British Army counterparts. “Frankly, I don’t think they were worried, because we were all focused on doing a very, very hard job.” He recalled something his commander had said, when advising him to come out to his squad: “The boss said, ‘I think you will be surprised that in this day and age it will be a complete anticlimax, because as far as I’m concerned, homosexuals in the military are yesterday’s news.’ ” | ||
| Kc10_fe |
Rum, sodomy, and the lash: Did the Royal Navy supply ships with "peg boys" for sex? September 5, 2008 Dear Cecil: One often hears references to rampant buggery among sailors in the glory days of the Royal Navy. Sometimes, it’s said, young boys called “peg boys” were on board solely for the purpose of providing pleasure to the officers. What’s the straight dope on this? — Wm. Bligh, Chicago Cecil replies: Not an easy question to . . . well, I guess we can’t say “get to the bottom of,” can we? “Get a handle on” also has unfortunate implications. So let’s just start. Was buggery, if not rampant, at least fairly common in the Royal Navy in its prime? (We’ll define this as the 18th century through WWI.) People certainly thought so at the time. Were ships’ boys sometimes used for sexual purposes by their elders? We have sworn testimony that they were. Did some British warships routinely put — let’s be blunt — underage male prostitutes on the manifest? Don’t be ridiculous. First, terminology. I’ve seen peg = “copulate” in a 1902 slang dictionary, and it’s easy to believe the expression was common long before that. But the earliest usage of peg boy cited in the Oxford English Dictionary is from Playboy’s Book of Forbidden Words by Robert Anton Wilson (1972), perhaps not the most reliable source. Wilson writes: “A ‘peg-boy’ is a young male who prostitutes himself to homosexuals; ‘peg-house’, a homosexual brothel. There is an unsubstantiated story that boys in East Indian peg-houses were required to sit on pegs between customers, giving them permanently dilated anuses.” Whatever you say, Bob. That’s not to say sailors spent all their time singing sea chanteys and tying knots. As in any environment in which males live in close quarters for extended periods (prison and boarding school are the other well-known venues in this respect), both consensual and nonconsensual homosexual behavior did and doubtless does occur aboard ships — see for example Barry Burg’s Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition (1995), which lends vivid new meaning to such expressions as “shiver me timbers” and “thar she blows.” Sodomy, incidentally, wasn’t clearly defined in English law but at minimum included anal intercourse between men (authorities differed on whether anal sex with a woman counted) and in some interpretations bestiality, necrophilia, and fellatio. More pertinent to our subject is Arthur Gilbert’s “Buggery and the British Navy, 1700-1861,” Journal of Social History, 1976. Gilbert suggests there’s some basis to the belief that the Royal Navy’s traditions consisted of “rum, sodomy, and the lash” (a witticism often misattributed to Winston Churchill). While conceding that “it is impossible to judge the incidence of buggery in the military,” he goes on to quote one British officer as follows: “I have been stationed, as you know, in two or three ships … On the D—, homosexuality was rife, and one could see with his own eyes how it was going on between officers. I have been told that in some services (the Austrian and French, for instance), nobody ever remarks about it, taking such a thing as a natural proceeding: that may be so or not; but in any case, nobody was ‘shocked’ on board either the A— or the B—. There were half a dozen ties that we knew about … To my knowledge, sodomy is a regular thing on ships that go on long cruises.” Still, Gilbert suggests, common is one thing, brazen is another. British naval buggery, however prevalent, was necessarily discreet: sodomy was officially considered a grave offense, and punishment was harsh. Buggery “comyttid with mankynde or beaste” was first made a capital crime by Henry VIII in 1533; naval buggery was specifically made a hanging offense in 1627. In 1806 there were more hangings in England for sodomy than for murder. Punishment could be brutal even if you escaped the noose. A sailor convicted in 1757 of raping a boy received 500 lashes; in 1762 two seamen received 1,000 lashes each for consensual sex. That was an extreme case, but average lash counts for morals offenses were often double those for mutiny and desertion. Merely attempting sodomy might get you “lashed around the fleet” (i.e., taken from ship to ship and whipped on each) and drummed out of the service. Officers weren’t exempt: Captain Henry Allen of the sloop Rattler was executed for sodomy in 1797, and Lieutenant William Berry was hanged in 1807 for buggering a boy. Conclusion: Whatever may have gone on beneath the poop deck, sex with boys at sea was never openly tolerated in the Royal Navy, let alone made a fixture of the officers’ mess. Eventually attitudes softened. Though sodomy remained a capital crime until 1861, the last British naval execution for the offense was in 1829, the last in the UK itself in 1835. After that, until legalization in 1967, the act was punishable by ten years to life. In short, to borrow from George Carlin, those convicted of sodomy were sent to prison where, in all likelihood, they were sodomized. — Cecil Adams EVERYTHING IS GOING FULL CIRCLE AGAIN | ||
| Blake |
>>> The Ministry of Defense does not compile figures on how many gay men and lesbians are openly serving, and it says that the number of people who have come out publicly in the past seven years is still relatively low. But it is clearly proud of how smoothly homosexuals have been integrated and is trying to make life easier for them. Sounds more like a social reformation project than military service. With an admittedly meager sample over a very limited duration any conclusions are premature. >>> “What we’re hoping to do is to, over a period of time, reinforce the message that people who are gay, lesbian and the like are welcomed in the armed forces and we don’t discriminate against them in any way,” a Defense Ministry official said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with the ministry’s practice. Hoping for change; sounds familiar. Too bad he has to hide his identity.  >>> To the extent it becomes an issue, it is usually ... So it is an issue. Pity the report doesn't offer full disclosure. Lame. >>> Those individuals need nurturing... I guess I'm old school. Nurturing is not something I expect anywhere in a career let alone in the military. It's "boot camp", not a "touchy-feely retreat". If someone needs nurturing, should they really be in the military? I won't comment on the British Navy advertising for recruits in homosexual magazines. >>> Our mission is to break down barriers of discrimination, prejudice, fear and misunderstanding.” The mission of the US Navy is hopefully to kill the enemy and defend American interests in the world as capably as possible. That is just another "report" that sounds all to much as though it was written from predetermined conclusion. An honest report would have described the issues that have indeed surfaced. Lame. (Message edited by Blake on December 04, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
KC, What publication is that from? Sounds like something from a cheap sick perverse rag. Vile disgusting stuff disguised as scholarly review, in truth serving only as titillation for the perverse and depraved. Don't post garbage like that on BadWeB again. | ||
| Kc10_fe |
Blake you crack me up dude. The truth of the matter is while we all have a voice; most people just don’t care about this. You will just stroke out spinning yourself into the ceiling over it. I don’t know what your service background is but when you go ballistic on things such as recruits and nurturing I see the holes in your experience. The military does nurture from day 1. Its tough love for awhile but to build an educated force that will fight and die for the cause takes an insane amount on money, time and training. Basic training is just a basic introduction to how we do things. A fresh graduate is as knowledgeable as my left sock. A kid with 2 years in knows enough to be dangerous. Anyone in between 2 to 6 years is still very much learning a craft hence the terminology of apprentice, journeyman and craftsman. There won’t be an exodus even if it was enacted tomorrow. Do you really think 250,000 or more people are going to try to quit the service and go on unemployment over this? Are you expecting the masses to throw away a secure source of income and a rewarding career over it? Do you even know what a typical E-6 or 7 takes home these days? When you factor BAH, BAS, special duty pays, tax exemptions, hostile fire and what not into the equation I would be hard pressed to find many that would not join or leave over it. Especially in this day and age with 10% unemployment and 17 million not working. If 1 person in the unit quits because they couldn’t work with someone who was a open flamer, there would be 50 people applying for that aircrew position before they walked out the door. Truth of the matter being everyone probably knows someone who is gay anyways even if they are not aware of it. It’s going to happen sooner or later and nobody is going to stop it. Public opinion on this isn’t strong enough. Half of America like half of Badweb is more concerned with having a job tomorrow or what’s happening on the jersey Shore or why is my clutch leaking again. Will hail and brimstone rain from heaven over a queer eye episode shot on a military base? Not if you ask most 20 something’s today because they don’t share your values at all. Generation Y is very much tuned out on religion because people have started to see that most the crap we are dealing with today is because if it. The stuff these kids today have seen on the internet since they were 12 eclipses what someone who is now 40 knew at 22. Times are changing dude and you can go Branch Dravidian all you want over this. Razor wire the front yard over it and build a bunker if you wish. In the end all you will have done is killed your property value. 2-5 years from now there will be fully trained highly competent and confident openly gay people protecting and projecting air, land, sea and space dominance for the US. | ||
| Blake |
Your read of my state of mind is way off base. Seems you pretend to speak for the entire service. I sure don't. I just read some survey results where 60% of front line combat personnel figure that having announced and open homosexuals in their ranks would compromise combat effectiveness and that the four chiefs of staff agree with that assessment. I've tried to explain my sense for why that is. In return I am ridiculed, attacked, called a bigot, a homophobe and otherwise derided. It is obvious to any objective observer that I am not the one up in arms all emotional on the issue. You've refuted some straw men very handily. Maybe try to contain emotion and discuss actual points absent wild exaggeration. You seem to be of the opinion that people shed their principles if honoring them will cause financial loss or other hardship. Some may. Others will hold strong to their principles. Times change... True enough. Sixty years ago divorce and unwed mothers were a rarity, inner cities were not cesspools of crime and gang violence, we deported illegals en mass, Detroit was thriving, our president didn't tour the globe bowing and appologizing to everyone, and America knew no defeat in war. This will shock you. I recently asked a retired couple from Loisianna whether things were better now or back when they were young in the fifties. Without hesitation they both answered "in the fifties." "Even with the racial issues" I asked. "It's WAY worse today" they said. "You can't bump into someone for fear of getting shot" the grandmother added. It blew my mind. These old colored folks FAR preferred putting up with old bigoted whitey to the hordes of young wanna-be gangster today. Grandma said that it wasn't near as bad as Hollywood likes to show in movies. She wondered why they don't show the reality of today. What changed? How did we get here from there? All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I've not served in the military. The four chiefs of staff do, as do the 60% of front line combatants cited by the survey. Take your indignation up with them. And give some thought about change and what it might mean in the long term, fifty or sixty years ahead. Before we look to tear down and reconstruct the pillars of the greatest most powerful nation on Earth, wouldn't that be a prudent thing to do? I think so. You have a dim view of religion. My experience is opposite yours. Of the dozens of young service men and women I've had the honor to meet and talk with, most were very secure in their religious faith and held to there convictions. Islamism is not religion only; it is totalitarianism akin to naziism, evil ideology of conquest and brutal oppression/subjugation. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
And again, human culture is not homogenous. America is very different from Europe. I've visited. It's obvious. Bloody good job too if you ask me. Europe has been ravaged by wars for centuries, & it's inhabitants have learned tolerance of the other over the years, be it religious cultural or sexual differences. There will always be certain individuals in any culture who lack the tolerance & empathy for others, & have their hard-line beliefs & agenda, but by far the huge majority aren't really bothered & just want to get on with their lives in peace. I think KC has made his point very succinctly. From what I've read here & seen elsewhere, I think the issue of gay people in the US military is not of huge importance, except to a vocal minority, most of whom it doesn't actually impinge upon. I'll add here, I've never served in any military force, I'm a medical reject. It's an interesting discussion nonetheless & I'm sure it will rumble on for a while, until attention is distracted elsewhere. | ||
| Brumbear |
So Blake do you like Gladiator movies? | ||
| Kc10_fe |
50s America is what the world fell in love with. Its a funny thing too because malt shops, doowop, classic cars and holding hands was racy. Apple pie and June Cleaver were the thing. Its too bad a war in Korea, Vietnam, the Beatles and the birth of anti establishment acid dropping hippies revolted and turned everything this place was into that it is today. Now we honor Jane Fonda for the good she did and put Pelosi in as the Speaker. You cant go back because the damage is already done. We can hope for some sort of a return to yesterdays values in a renaissance but I think we have already missed the turn. In the 50s there werent street gangsters turned into movie stars. Abortion clinics werent in strip malls. It wasnt ok to call 911 if your dad beat your ass for something you did to deserve it. We didnt have instant access to the worst things humanity can manage to come up with personal computers. We had an obvious enemy in the USSR and Cuba. Peole worked for money instead of collecting assistance for a living. The moral fabric of this culture has been on fire for many years. There is no easy solution. | ||
| Bjbauer |
Enough has been said about this already but this is a pretty good article http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/02/dadt.future .questions/index.html?hpt=Sbin | ||
| Blake |
There's a challenge at the end of this post that I hope all will engage. It may well shift some points of view. It did mine. I agree Inness, absent the ad hominem, this is a good discussion, and getting better. It has been incredibly thought provoking for me. It's thought provoking because I don't wish pain or anguish on anyone, and my political leaning is strongly on the side of freedom. At the same time I see a terrible trend. Too much angry hatefulness by too many pretending to stand up for "tolerance"; the hypocrisy is palpable. Anytime a thoughtful person voices an opposing view concerning a certain issue such as abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, origins (life & universe), Christianity, gun rights, man-made climate change, animal rights, homosexual "marriage", islamism, or personal responsibility versus welfare statism, there are those , far too many, who refuse to actually listen and discuss thoughtfully, instead reacting hatefully with personal attack aimed at demonizing and silencing their opposition. On top of that many go beyond advocating tolerance to promoting and glorifying their particular behavior, entity, or cause of choice. They seek to force feed it to all. We see it in our schools, in popular culture, in politics, in legislation, and in the courts. A very vocal rabidly intolerant minority forcing their beliefs upon everyone, all under guise of the now sacred "tolerance." Not everything should be tolerated much less glorified. Public nudity for instance has its proponents, as does polygamy, as does public sexual intimacy, as does bestiality, as does prostitution, as does incest, as does recreational drug use, as does pedophilia (see NAMBLA for instance or the popular boy-sex culture of Pakistan)... With few exceptions we generally promote, codify, and enforce intolerance of the all above. Why? Why are we intolerant of some behavior? What would be the effect of tolerating bestiality? Pedophilia? We used to be intolerant of adultery. Now our culture not only tolerates, but glorifies it. The effect is more adultery, more divorce, more broken anguished families. We used to be intolerant of premarital sex and unwed pregnancy. Now our culture not only tolerates, but glorifies and promotes both. The effect is more of both, more anguish, more disease, more single mothers, more poverty, more children without optimum family environment, more street gangs... What will be the long term effect of not merely tolerating homosexual lifestyle, but promoting and glorifying it as we are now doing? For instance, what might an unimpassioned, honest, objective analysis of the homosexual/bisexual portion of our society reveal? Passion, empathy, and emotional zeal is fine, but not when shrouded in ignorance or worse, outright falsehood. I challenge all to look at the hard facts concerning promiscuity, disease, and mental disorders among male homosexuals/bisexuals versus heterosexuals. Based upon the comments I've seen here, some are in for a very disconcerting shock. Example: Homosexual/bisexual men are 50 times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than the rest of the population. Comprising only around 2% of our total population, homo/bisexual men account for over half of all new and existing HIV/AIDS infections and 65% of syphilis infections. This is 20+ years since education on the issue hit high gear, yet there it is. What does this say about the male homo/bisexual population and the lifestyle many of them choose? | ||
| Brumbear |
So you don't like gladiator movies then? | ||
| Blake |
What about Greek epics? | ||
| Brumbear |
SPARTICUS-SPARTICUS | ||
| Aesquire |
"300" Rocked! I even enjoyed "Spartacus, Blood and Sand". It's not children safe, having lots of nudity, blood, sweat, blood, nudity, sex, blood, violence, and blood. Oh, sand too. But I'll put up with a lot of fake blood to see Lucy Lawless nude. Surprisingly, the acting was quite good, especially Lucy. | ||
| Midnightrider |
Blake Nice try. You make me dizzy with the circles you spin. If you'd like to take this off-line, I'm game. I enjoy the challenge of debate. Otherwise, back under the bridge, troll | ||
| Buellbozo |
Blake, For what it's worth, I agree with your statement "...a very vocal, rabidly intolerant minority forcing their beliefs on everyone..." To some people in other parts of this country, that phrase describes the Texas School Book Commission, who in company with spineless (get it?) publishers, are affecting the textbooks our children get nationwide. I'm not slamming Texas here, I'm not that stupid. I like Texas just fine. It COULD be the California School Book Commission (if there even is one, I dunno). Now there's a scary thought, huh? I mention this solely as an example of how fine a line we tread between using good principles for good works, and using good principles to further that which may well be detrimental to the citizenry as a whole. We just almost never get to see the results in a timely manner. As for the "shocker", somebody beat me to the "Spocker", and that's all I got. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Nice try. You make me dizzy with the circles you spin. If you'd like to take this off-line, I'm game. I enjoy the challenge of debate. Otherwise, back under the bridge, troll The juvenile disrespect and personal nonsense that you seem to imagine engenders debate is worse than a waste of time, it makes for animosity and ill-will. Putting ideology and emotion ahead of logic and a willingness for the dialectic almost always leads to such miserableness. I've seen it over and over again by people like you who so wrap their emotions around an issue they can't even begin to see any kind of opposing view. Sad. Dishonest. Disrespectful. Ignorant. Surely you can do better. | ||
| Blake |
>>> To some people in other parts of this country, that phrase describes the Texas School Book Commission, They are probably ill-informed ideologues, much like those who allow emotion to color their view of some issues. The argument as I see it... Liberal: We want homosexuals to be able to serve openly in the military. Logical Person: Why? Liberal: They are patriotic and want to serve, so should be able to. It's not fair that they cannot; it is oppressive and bigoted. Why do you care what they do in private? Logical Person: What about the people who will be forced to live among them in intimate close quarters? Won't some of them, those who view homosexuality as repugnant or sinful be very unhappy and upset? I care nothing for what they do in private. I care about the effect of their behavior on our warfighting capability and the rights of heterosexual service persons who view homosexuality as sinful, and abhorrent; why should they be forced against their will to live in intimate close quarters with homosexuals? Liberal: They're bigots. We don't need them. Logical Person: But there are indeed very real and very prevalent life-threatening risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle, and thus there are very valid reasons for our warfighters to consider excluding those choosing to practice such deviant behavior. Some of the undesirable and dangerous consequences of the male homosexual/bisexual lifestyle include rampant promiscuity, disease in near plague proportions (in some cases 75 times more so than for heterosexuals), and disproportionate numbers of mental problems? Is that what we want to invite into our military? Liberal: You're arguing in circles; I'm not going to continue this discussion. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Blake, you have indeed seen the problem. The difference between tolerance & promulgation. The difficulty arises within a culture when the arguments get publicised to such a degree that they take on an importance that is undeserved & becomes self fuelling. It's very much the same deal as with the terrorists, the need for the oxygen of publicity, if the issues aren't pumped up they don't really become issues at all in many cases. It's not for nothing that we say "Let sleeping dogs lie." There are those however who will stop at nothing to push their own agenda, for either commercial or idealogical reasons, & by so doing artificially inflate the problem. Witness, Westboro. By the same token there are Gay activists who have done their cause more harm than good by their actions. It's the old "Bell Chart" thing, the vast majority are moderate, middle of the road, type people & there are very tiny minorities at the extremes of the curve. What to do about it all? Well much as it pains me to say it, I think the heart of the problem is the US legal system. When people can sue for the slightest of reasons a culture of entitlement develops & this will be used by those wishing to manipulate the issues for their own purposes. My personal opinion is that until, the legal system & constitution are overhauled & updated for our times, the situation will not improve. But I'm no expert in these matters, I'm just a truck driver that reads a lot. | ||
| Buellbozo |
Well, that certainly answered my point. I, and millions of citizens who object to the effect the TSBC is having on the textbooks of their children nationwide, are "probably ill-informed ideologues, much like those who allow emotion to color their view of some issues." And, by inference, the dozen or so people on the TSBC aren't "ill-informed ideologues", so their view of things is fine to inflict on millions who have no voice in Texas affairs or the gutless publishers who make the economic decision that "one size fits all". There seems to be some people who think this country would be better off if we just let "right thinking" people like those on the TSBC run this country. The fact that a majority of Americans disagree on the choosing of those "right thinkers", and show it at the ballot box, is the saving grace of this country. And eventually, the Right always seems to resort to the "YOU are too stupid and ill-informed to see things the way I do,or you'd agree with me" thing. There are also folks nationwide who think that Gov. Perry had the right idea about Texas seceding from the union. | ||
| Not_purple_s2 |
Jesus.... this again. Blake, You don't think that the spread of Aids/HIV and other std's through the gay community had anything to do with; 1. most gays had/have to hide their sexuallity thus forcing them to resort more often to casual sexual activity rather than normal monogomous relationships, 2. The gay community is rather small. 3. Before the outbreak of disease there was really no reason for gay men to use condoms. Those factors couldn't have had anything to do with the spread of HIV through the gay community. It's more likely just because they're evil and vile. And again with the "choice" argument. When did you "choose" to to be straight? Ever have to "choose" not to be gay? You argue about a moral decay. but what if it were to roll the other way. No sex without procreation. If you and your wife are doing it you better be trying to have a baby because otherwise that's just fornication! |
