Thread: DADT Repealed

bigann - 12/18/2010 at 11:36 PM

It's a good day and way past time for this to be repealed.


SquatchTexas - 12/18/2010 at 11:55 PM

Great news.

Ask, tell.


Brock - 12/19/2010 at 02:15 AM

Congress votes the will of the people (and soldiers). That is good, as is the possibility of some ousted quality military re-upping. That would be heroic, given their treatment.


PhotoRon286 - 12/19/2010 at 02:55 AM

mccain votes against it, douche bag to the end.


alloak41 - 12/19/2010 at 03:02 AM

"You don't have to be straight to shoot straight"

-- Barry Goldwater


bigann - 12/19/2010 at 03:26 AM

quote:
mccain votes against it, douche bag to the end.


Speaking of that douche bag...what's up with him these days? Is he getting senile or is he trying to totally screw his legacy?


PhotoRon286 - 12/19/2010 at 04:45 AM

As I posted on facebook, he's so senile he can't remember what he stands for from day to day.


reneed - 12/20/2010 at 06:07 PM

yall know wat,,,,,,,i betchu a dollar to a donut if somma them congress mens was gittin they asses shot at they wouldnt give a damn if the one protectin em was gay, straight, red, purple, or snake screwers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they can come up wit the stupidest stuff to worry bout up there in washinton i ever seen in my life,,,,,,,,,,,,,it used to didnt matter watchu was long as you was man enuff to tote a gun & shoot it,,,,,,,,,


fanfrom-71 - 12/20/2010 at 06:17 PM

quote:
they wouldnt give a damn if the one protectin em was gay, straight, red, purple, or snake screwers
Especially if they were taking their place for their defermement.


alanwoods - 12/20/2010 at 06:55 PM

Who's gonna hold the snake still?


reneed - 12/21/2010 at 12:39 AM

quote:
quote:
they wouldnt give a damn if the one protectin em was gay, straight, red, purple, or snake screwers
Especially if they were taking their place for their defermement.

baby doll i love you to death but i aint got a clue watchu just said ,,,,,,,,,,,

quote:
Who's gonna hold the snake still?

somma the ones wats gittin questioned bout they personal choice in life partners,,,,,,,,,,,,,


fanfrom-71 - 12/21/2010 at 12:49 AM

quote:
they wouldnt give a damn if the one protectin em was gay, straight, red, purple, or snake screwers
Especially if they were taking their place for their defermement.

baby doll i love you to death but i aint got a clue watchu just said ,,,,,,,,,,,
I think if Cheney had needed ANOTHER deferment, he woulda' sent any of the ones you mentioned to take his place.


reneed - 12/21/2010 at 01:21 AM

quote:
quote:
they wouldnt give a damn if the one protectin em was gay, straight, red, purple, or snake screwers
Especially if they were taking their place for their defermement.

baby doll i love you to death but i aint got a clue watchu just said ,,,,,,,,,,,
I think if Cheney had needed ANOTHER deferment, he woulda' sent any of the ones you mentioned to take his place.

OH!!!,,,,,,,,,you mean they'd send anybody they could find to protect em & wouldnt be givin a damn wat persuasion they was,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,OK,,,,,,,i got it now,,,,,,,,,,,,,keep it simple baby,,,you know my brain is kinda slushy ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


gina - 12/21/2010 at 05:37 AM

quote:
"You don't have to be straight to shoot straight"

-- Barry Goldwater


True, but with the stress they are under in a war time situation, it could create problems, ie. if you're thinking about something that went on with your lover, you might be distracted, hesitate and cost someone their life. If that person is in your unit you may be paying more attention to that person than other people, putting other people's lives at risk. There should not be gays in the military. The 'don't ask, don' t tell' meant, just keep it private, do not have relationships with other men while in the service and nobody will find out about your status. That is probably easier said than done.


bigann - 12/21/2010 at 07:04 AM

That's the same arguement used to keep women out of combat units several years ago. I think it's erroneous to think gays would be putting their fellow soldiers in danger thinking about their 'relationships' any more than heterosexual soldiers would. I just don't believe that arguement holds up under scrutiny.


reneed - 12/21/2010 at 12:17 PM

ok,,,,,,,here it go,,,,,,,,it dont matter if you gay, straight or crooked as a snake,,,,,all families is got the same problems,,,,money, love, kids, bills, last time you took a dump,,,erebody got the same issues to deal wit as families,,,,,,,,when you out there gittin shot at somehow wat your wife, lover, mistress or mastress is doin just dont come to mind,,,,,if you on post in a non combat zone in a nice comfy barracks you mite gonna be studyin bout stuff like that,,,,,,,,,in combat all you got on your mind is keepin your ass & the asses round you from gittin shot,,,,,,,,,,that aint a gay thang, it aint a straight thang, it aint a democrat, republican or communist thang,,,,,,,,,,,its a survival thang,,,,,,when you gittin shot at you aint gonna be lookin at the dude or dudette in the next bunker or fox hole thinkin bout how perty they is,,,,,,,,thats your backup,,,,,,thats all you got time to worry bout,,,,,,,,,,keepin your backup from gittin killed,,,,,,,that aint 100% of the mens & womens wat serve but its 99.8% of em,,,,,,,ever crowd got the 1 or 2 wats gonna be differnt,,,,,,that go wit everthang they is in the history of the world,,,,,,,,,i dont give a damn wat persuasion somebody is,,,,,it aint none of my bidness less that wanna make it my bidness,,,,,,,,long as they got red blood in em they can do watdahell ever they wanna do,,,,,,,,i dont pay they bills so i cant tell em nothin,,,,,,,,,the damn govt oughta be the same way,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Jerry - 12/21/2010 at 04:01 PM

quote:
yall know wat,,,,,,,i betchu a dollar to a donut if somma them congress mens was gittin they asses shot at they wouldnt give a damn if the one protectin em was gay, straight, red, purple, or snake screwers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they can come up wit the stupidest stuff to worry bout up there in washinton i ever seen in my life,,,,,,,,,,,,,it used to didnt matter watchu was long as you was man enuff to tote a gun & shoot it,,,,,,,,,



Units that I trained with in general, had several guys (officers and enlisted) that were obviously "queer" as we called them back then. As long as they did their job, they were OK by us.


bigann - 12/21/2010 at 05:33 PM

I think Renee and Jerry pretty much said what's on my mind! Thank you!


reneed - 12/21/2010 at 07:25 PM

quote:
I think Renee and Jerry pretty much said what's on my mind! Thank you!

glad i could help you out there mama ,,,,,,,


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/22/2010 at 03:16 AM

I think this is a good thing. Open it all up. If you just went through five straight days of battle in the Korangal Valley in Afghanistan and you get a few hours break and come across a hobbled Valais Blackneck tied to an almond tree and you can trade the attending Ghasu Khel range referee two Kit Kat bars for fiteen minutes of bristle splittin', it's nobody's business. There should be no repercussions whatsoever.


fanfrom-71 - 12/22/2010 at 03:18 AM

Contest to see who is the biggest idiot between the 2 of you?


MikeBremer - 12/22/2010 at 03:35 AM

Watch it ..... there is one behind you.....


bigann - 12/22/2010 at 03:49 AM

quote:
Contest to see who is the biggest idiot between the 2 of you?


I think they both qualify for the totally unnecessary and reprehensible award. To h*ll with both of them...or the playpen....I'd settle for that.


MikeBremer - 12/22/2010 at 03:54 AM

Ann.... your fixin' to get beat by experience.....


bigann - 12/22/2010 at 03:57 AM

Ah, I see your point. Thank you for reminding me.


MikeBremer - 12/22/2010 at 03:59 AM

No problem.... anytime....


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/22/2010 at 04:07 AM

quote:
I think they both qualify for the totally unnecessary and reprehensible award. To h*ll with both of them...or the playpen....I'd settle for that.




You rang, Countess?!?!


PhotoRon286 - 12/22/2010 at 01:22 PM

quote:
Now with the legalizing of sodomy and bestiality in our military


With a few exceptions, goats and gays aren't the same thing.


Dumbest post of the day.


SquatchTexas - 12/22/2010 at 02:19 PM

quote:
Now with the legalizing of sodomy and bestiality in our military, we’ll see what the brave men and women who serve will be focused on: fighting wars or fighting perversion in the ranks.


Legalization of sodomy and 'bestiality'?

Since when? And where does Beasteality come into this issue?

Past that, apparently you fail to realize that there have been gays in the military since there has been a military. And if you had bothered to do even an inkling of research into this matter, you would see how many highly qualified and committed soldiers have been persecuted by this odious law, in a time of war no less.

Are you really this big of an idiot or are you just messing with everyone?


SquatchTexas - 12/22/2010 at 02:20 PM

quote:
quote:
Now with the legalizing of sodomy and bestiality in our military


With a few exceptions, goats and gays aren't the same thing.


Dumbest post of the day.


Day aint over yet.... give him time.


Rusty - 12/22/2010 at 03:26 PM

quote:
quote:
Now with the legalizing of sodomy and bestiality in our military


Hey! Some of my best friends are sheep-shaggers!


jim - 12/22/2010 at 04:39 PM

quote:
That's the same arguement used to keep women out of combat units several years ago.


A good friend of our family, Col. John Ripley (now deceased), testified to Congress about allowing women (and homosexuals) in combat. Col. Ripley, if you google his name, had seen his fair share of combat,a dn was a highly decorated Marine. He was not only a warrior, but one of the smartest men I have met. Incidentally, Ripley contractred Hep C and needed a liver transplant toward the end of his life because of the bloody combat scenes he encountered. I would encourage all to read the following from him, whether you agree or not, its certainly a different way of thinking about it. He descirbes combat so well, or horribly i guess. Sorry for the link, was having a hard time cutting and pasting the content:

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/statement-of-col-john- w-ripley-before-the-house-armed-services-committee.html




bigann - 12/22/2010 at 04:58 PM

The man has certainly earned the right to his opinion, however I don't agree. To suggest that the only thing a homosexual has on his or her mind is sex is to deny the perception the only think a straight man has on his mind is getting laid. I dare say many a straight man has served with a gay soldier and never even knew it, even before DADT. People are people.......they do their jobs and then retire to the privacy of their own homes for whatever relationships they have straight or gay.


jim - 12/22/2010 at 05:28 PM

quote:
I dare say many a straight man has served with a gay soldier and never even knew it, even before DADT. People are people.......they do their jobs and then retire to the privacy of their own homes for whatever relationships they have straight or gay.



Yes, I agree, but why do we need people proclaiming their sexuality? It seems then sexuality would trump the unit.


er1016 - 12/22/2010 at 06:13 PM

quote:
quote:
That's the same arguement used to keep women out of combat units several years ago.


A good friend of our family, Col. John Ripley (now deceased), testified to Congress about allowing women (and homosexuals) in combat. Col. Ripley, if you google his name, had seen his fair share of combat,a dn was a highly decorated Marine. He was not only a warrior, but one of the smartest men I have met. Incidentally, Ripley contractred Hep C and needed a liver transplant toward the end of his life because of the bloody combat scenes he encountered. I would encourage all to read the following from him, whether you agree or not, its certainly a different way of thinking about it. He descirbes combat so well, or horribly i guess. Sorry for the link, was having a hard time cutting and pasting the content:

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/statement-of-col-john- w-ripley-before-the-house-armed-services-committee.html






Thanks for the link, speaking as someone who has served in the military and been in that environment/situation, I’d say his assessment is spot on.


dutchoneill - 12/22/2010 at 06:38 PM

quote:
The man has certainly earned the right to his opinion, however I don't agree. To suggest that the only thing a homosexual has on his or her mind is sex is to deny the perception the only think a straight man has on his mind is getting laid. I dare say many a straight man has served with a gay soldier and never even knew it, even before DADT. People are people.......they do their jobs and then retire to the privacy of their own homes for whatever relationships they have straight or gay.




Amen Ann, I served in the Navy with boys/men who were prolly gay, some were obvious about it but living in the close quarters we lived in it was never really a problem and truthfully we never thought about it...I hope that continues.


Rusty - 12/22/2010 at 06:46 PM

You'd think they would have repealed the "no homosexuals" law during the Vietnam era, when "I'm gay!" was the biggest draft dodge out there! If the draft should ever be reinstated, I guess conscientious objectors will have to go back to shooting themselves in the foot!


gondicar - 12/22/2010 at 06:53 PM

quote:
quote:
That's the same arguement used to keep women out of combat units several years ago.


A good friend of our family, Col. John Ripley (now deceased), testified to Congress about allowing women (and homosexuals) in combat. Col. Ripley, if you google his name, had seen his fair share of combat,a dn was a highly decorated Marine. He was not only a warrior, but one of the smartest men I have met. Incidentally, Ripley contractred Hep C and needed a liver transplant toward the end of his life because of the bloody combat scenes he encountered. I would encourage all to read the following from him, whether you agree or not, its certainly a different way of thinking about it. He descirbes combat so well, or horribly i guess. Sorry for the link, was having a hard time cutting and pasting the content:

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/statement-of-col-john- w-ripley-before-the-house-armed-services-committee.html


Thanks for posting. With all due respect for Col. Ripley's service and his position on this issue, I could not help but feel like much of his opposition is from a bygone era with respect to HIV/AIDS infection. While in some ways 1993 seems like yesterday, in many ways it is an eternity ago. I can't help but wonder if his stance would have changed at all given what we as a society have learned about HIV/AIDS over the last 17 years.


Brock - 12/22/2010 at 07:01 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
That's the same arguement used to keep women out of combat units several years ago.


A good friend of our family, Col. John Ripley (now deceased), testified to Congress about allowing women (and homosexuals) in combat. Col. Ripley, if you google his name, had seen his fair share of combat,a dn was a highly decorated Marine. He was not only a warrior, but one of the smartest men I have met. Incidentally, Ripley contractred Hep C and needed a liver transplant toward the end of his life because of the bloody combat scenes he encountered. I would encourage all to read the following from him, whether you agree or not, its certainly a different way of thinking about it. He descirbes combat so well, or horribly i guess. Sorry for the link, was having a hard time cutting and pasting the content:

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/statement-of-col-john- w-ripley-before-the-house-armed-services-committee.html


Thanks for posting. With all due respect for Col. Ripley's service and his position on this issue, I could not help but feel like much of his opposition is from a bygone era with respect to HIV/AIDS infection. While in some ways 1993 seems like yesterday, in many ways it is an eternity ago. I can't help but wonder if his stance would have changed at all given what we as a society have learned about HIV/AIDS over the last 17 years.


Yes, and there is also the shift in opinions that have occurred in those 17 yrs. The statistics the Col cites have all reversed themselves over this time.

Heck, it is possible that the late Col himself may have changed his own opinion on the issue, like many other respected officers have done.


bigann - 12/22/2010 at 07:02 PM

quote:
quote:
I dare say many a straight man has served with a gay soldier and never even knew it, even before DADT. People are people.......they do their jobs and then retire to the privacy of their own homes for whatever relationships they have straight or gay.



Yes, I agree, but why do we need people proclaiming their sexuality? It seems then sexuality would trump the unit.



Do we know of more than isolated incidents where people in the military were wearing the rainbow flags on their uniform, so to speak? The gay people I know are folks going about their business.....I know they're gay, they know they're gay and it never factors in to their jobs. To put it in a different light....do we need men gathering around the water cooler talking about getting laid by this or that hot chick?


jim - 12/22/2010 at 08:34 PM

quote:
The statistics the Col cites have all reversed themselves over this time.



Not to get off on a tangent here, but I am not so sure this is from a bygone era. Some of the more recent data I have read, at least with respect to NYC, is that HIV is on the rise among the city’s men who have sex with other men. The rate has actually doubled since 2001. This could be a result of all of the new drugs which can effectively treat the symptoms of HIV. Perhaps people feel that this is something they can live with now, and as such engage in more risky behavior?

quote:
Heck, it is possible that the late Col himself may have changed his own opinion on the issue, like many other respected officers have done.



I can say, he did not. Nor did he change his mind with respect to women in combat.


jim - 12/22/2010 at 08:42 PM

quote:
Do we know of more than isolated incidents where people in the military were wearing the rainbow flags on their uniform, so to speak? The gay people I know are folks going about their business.....I know they're gay, they know they're gay and it never factors in to their jobs. To put it in a different light....do we need men gathering around the water cooler talking about getting laid by this or that hot chick?


No, we don't need that last part. However, gathering around a water cooler is a lot differnt than having your pals guts spilled all over you. The unit is imperative in the latter. Whether we like it or not, having someone harp on their sexuality is a drawback from the unit.


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/22/2010 at 09:05 PM

quote:
The man has certainly earned the right to his opinion, however I don't agree. To suggest that the only thing a homosexual has on his or her mind is sex is to deny the perception the only think a straight man has on his mind is getting laid. I dare say many a straight man has served with a gay soldier and never even knew it, even before DADT. People are people.......they do their jobs and then retire to the privacy of their own homes for whatever relationships they have straight or gay.




Number one, I'm all for the decision. Know gay folks, work with them, never been a problem.

But there is a couple of questions that I still can't seem to get an answer to, as in;

Are gay men sexually attracted to the naked male body in the same way that heterosexual men are attracted to the female body?? Yes or no??

If the answer is "yes," then why are gay men allowed to take showers with male soldiers while the male soldiers are not allowed to take showers with the female soldiers?? What is the difference? Be specific. Thanks.


bigann - 12/22/2010 at 09:24 PM

I don't want to bust your bubble sunshine, but women could bathe with most men and not be the least bit turned on. The naked body isn't necessarily that great of a turn on to a lot of people period. You've probably stood next to a gay guy at the urinal in a club and I'm assuming you never got jumped by a turned on dude or vice versa.....but I could be wrong.


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/22/2010 at 09:56 PM

quote:
I don't want to bust your bubble sunshine, but women could bathe with most men and not be the least bit turned on. The naked body isn't necessarily that great of a turn on to a lot of people period. You've probably stood next to a gay guy at the urinal in a club and I'm assuming you never got jumped by a turned on dude or vice versa.....but I could be wrong.



So, does that mean that you are ok with men and women showering together in the military?? Yes or no??


gondicar - 12/22/2010 at 10:06 PM

quote:
quote:
Do we know of more than isolated incidents where people in the military were wearing the rainbow flags on their uniform, so to speak? The gay people I know are folks going about their business.....I know they're gay, they know they're gay and it never factors in to their jobs. To put it in a different light....do we need men gathering around the water cooler talking about getting laid by this or that hot chick?


No, we don't need that last part. However, gathering around a water cooler is a lot differnt than having your pals guts spilled all over you. The unit is imperative in the latter. Whether we like it or not, having someone harp on their sexuality is a drawback from the unit.

That is a very valid point. And I think that Col. Ripley was essentially asserting the same point when he said:
quote:
We discriminate between the too weak, the too tall, the too fat, the flat-footed, the disease ridden, single parents, morally corrupt, drug users, alcoholics, or abusers of any substance; we discriminate against the altogether good Americans who simply can’t be expected to perform at our standards—and our standards are high and obviously must remain high.

To me, he is essentially asserting the Marine ad slogan that I'm sure we all know by heart, "The few. The Proud. The Marines." I hope that never changes.

He then says a few paragraphs later:
quote:
Homosexuals constantly focus on themselves: their so-called needs, what they want, their entitlements, their rights; they never talk about the good of the unit. It is this constant focus on themselves, the inability to subjugate or to subordinate their own personal desire for the good of the unit.

This paragraph strikes me on a few levels. Seems to me there is some stereotyping going on there. Also, how would he know "they never talk about the good of the unit" if they've never been allowed in the unit to begin with? But beyond that, I would like to think that if a recruit exhibited the sort of self-indulgent behavior that he seemed to believe is inherrent in all homosexuals, then gay or straight they would never make it through the rigors of the selection process that takes place throughout basic training and beyond prior to landing in a combat unit.

Gays come in all shapes, sizes and temperments. There are those that fit the stereotypical profile that the Col. presents, but I would observe there are straight people that fit that profile as well. Gay or straight, I can understand how that type of person would probably not make a good combat soldier and I have to believe that a person who exhibits those personality traits would not be likely to make it through the recruiting process, to say nothing about making it through basic training.

There are lots of jobs in the military, and not all of them require the same kind of mental and physical makeup as that of a front line combat Marine (again...The Few. The Proud. The Marines.). Are there gays that DO have the mental and physical makeup to be a combat Marine? I have to believe that there are, and would be shocked if there aren't some gay soldiers who are already are serving in that capacity but remain "in the closet".

I guess what I am trying to say is that gay or straight, there are certain types of people that are better suited for certain roles in the military. I don't think anyone who supports the repeal of DADT would suggest that a gay person should end up in a role that they are not suited for just because they are gay...this is not about creating some kind of affirmative action program for gay people. Rather, the whole point IMO is to ensure that someone who IS well-suited for a particular role in the military is not prevented from serving in that role soley because they are gay.



[Edited on 12/22/2010 by gondicar]


bigann - 12/22/2010 at 10:56 PM

quote:
quote:
I don't want to bust your bubble sunshine, but women could bathe with most men and not be the least bit turned on. The naked body isn't necessarily that great of a turn on to a lot of people period. You've probably stood next to a gay guy at the urinal in a club and I'm assuming you never got jumped by a turned on dude or vice versa.....but I could be wrong.



So, does that mean that you are ok with men and women showering together in the military?? Yes or no??


The women I know can handle it.....I don't know about the guys.....but I wouldn't have any problem showering with any females who are lesbians. The gay people I know aren't out to make any converts and generally know who is straight and who isn't. I have a number of friends who are lesbians and it's never been an issue with them trying to hit on me.....not the case with some of the men I've encountered.

[Edited on 12/22/2010 by bigann]


SquatchTexas - 12/22/2010 at 11:06 PM

quote:
Are gay men sexually attracted to the naked male body in the same way that heterosexual men are attracted to the female body?? Yes or no??


I would say yes.

quote:
If the answer is "yes," then why are gay men allowed to take showers with male soldiers while the male soldiers are not allowed to take showers with the female soldiers?? What is the difference? Be specific. Thanks.




This is probably one of the dumber things you have ever come up with, but hey, Ill go along for a bit. First off, gay soldiers have been showering with heterosexual soldiers for eons. This isnt going to change. They arent going to lose all control and begin having a gay orgy in the shower, despite what you may believe, let alone jumping hetero males in the showers, latrines or bunk areas. Gays, amazingly enough, actually have self control just like you and me. This ruling, as troubling as it is to the homophobes, is going to do nothing more than prevent the attrition of some of our very best soldiers to a bigoted viewpoint that is no longer shared amongst many in the military.

Men and women, being physically different and the fact that females can become pregnant are usually the reasons why they are not allowed to shower together. Of course, if two female soldiers are showering together and one is gay, I suppose thats a lot 'hotter' than two males, right?


SquatchTexas - 12/22/2010 at 11:09 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't want to bust your bubble sunshine, but women could bathe with most men and not be the least bit turned on. The naked body isn't necessarily that great of a turn on to a lot of people period. You've probably stood next to a gay guy at the urinal in a club and I'm assuming you never got jumped by a turned on dude or vice versa.....but I could be wrong.



So, does that mean that you are ok with men and women showering together in the military?? Yes or no??


The women I know can handle it.....I don't know about the guys.....but I wouldn't have any problem showering with any females who are lesbians. The gay people I know aren't out to make any converts and generally know who is straight and who isn't. I have a number of friends who are lesbians and it's never been an issue with them trying to hit on me.....not the case with some of the men I've encountered.

[Edited on 12/22/2010 by bigann]


Exactly. I work with a number of gay people, both male and female..hell, one was once a man and is now a woman. No problems at all. A hell of a lot less drama actually than the hetero crowd in my department. Derek is simply dressing this issue up to hide his homophobia about gays in the military, as if that was ever going to be a problem for him lol.

He supports the ruling but has all these questions...yeah, right... :rolls eyes:


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/22/2010 at 11:25 PM

quote:
Exactly. I work with a number of gay people, both male and female..hell, one was once a man and is now a woman. No problems at all. A hell of a lot less drama actually than the hetero crowd in my department.


Natural born lover, are ya' squank?? Believe me, those questions were not aimed at Stiffsville, USA. Thanks.

quote:
Derek is simply dressing this issue up to hide his homophobia about gays in the military, as if that was ever going to be a problem for him lol.



Not a homophobe, although it is cute when you try to be relevant and hip. Not even in the ball orchard, Duds.


lolasdeb - 12/22/2010 at 11:37 PM

quote:
True, but with the stress they are under in a war time situation, it could create problems, ie. if you're thinking about something that went on with your lover, you might be distracted, hesitate and cost someone their life.
'Thinking about something that went on with your lover' could apply to gay/straight/male/female ... anybody who has/had a lover.
quote:
To suggest that the only thing a homosexual has on his or her mind is sex is to deny the perception the only think a straight man has on his mind is getting laid.
Agree. It's nonsense.


bigann - 12/23/2010 at 04:10 AM

Have you ever been in the military?


Sang - 12/23/2010 at 04:39 AM

Letterman said this means the military will have better parades....


Sang - 12/23/2010 at 04:41 AM

quote:
Of course, if two female soldiers are showering together and one is gay, I suppose thats a lot 'hotter' than two males, right?



I'd like to solve the puzzle, Pat.......


fanfrom-71 - 12/23/2010 at 04:42 AM

quote:
Letterman said this means the military will have better parades....
Just heard that.


jerryphilbob - 12/23/2010 at 04:58 AM

I say if gay guys can shower with straight guys, let's just have communal showers and just let the boys and girls shower together.

At this point, what is the difference?

The transformation of Amerika continues full steam ahead


Hows that change workin' out fer ya Amerika



[Edited on 12/23/2010 by jerryphilbob]


Sang - 12/23/2010 at 05:13 AM

As usual, you made no sense at all.......


bigann - 12/23/2010 at 05:27 AM

quote:
I say if gay guys can shower with straight guys, let's just have communal showers and just let the boys and girls shower together.

At this point, what is the difference?

The transformation of Amerika continues full steam ahead


Hows that change workin' out fer ya Amerika



[Edited on 12/23/2010 by jerryphilbob]


Want to give us some idea of what your perfect AmeriCa would be like since you don't like the one we've got?


Sang - 12/23/2010 at 05:35 AM

Heterosexuals only buying hot tubs with silver.........


bigann - 12/23/2010 at 05:57 AM

There have been gays in the military serving this country since the beginning of time and if they are willing to put on the uniform to protect some of the sorry a$$ homophobics around here then they have my respect and as far as I know, the military has managed just fine with gays serving alongside the 'straight' people. We're all God's children and if we're alll made in His image, as the Bible says, then obviously we're all equal, straight and gay.


jerryphilbob - 12/23/2010 at 06:01 AM

quote:
buying hot tubs with silver

Too bad our banks don't take or exchange silver, I would have to go to China for that.


I wonder if there is anything else that this lame duck congress is going to jam down AmeriKas throats before they don't have the votes anymore?

Cap and Trade anyone? Time is running out.


Sang - 12/23/2010 at 06:08 AM

That would be ok with me.......


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/23/2010 at 09:40 AM

quote:
There have been gays in the military serving this country since the beginning of time and if they are willing to put on the uniform to protect some of the sorry a$$ homophobics around here then they have my respect and as far as I know, the military has managed just fine with gays serving alongside the 'straight' people. We're all God's children and if we're alll made in His image, as the Bible says, then obviously we're all equal, straight and gay.


Is it equal that men and women can come together and reproduce and make babies while Nature makes it impossible, without exception, for those of the same sex to reproduce?? Nature is clear. It is unequivocal. No exceptions. Why??


SquatchTexas - 12/23/2010 at 11:17 AM

quote:
quote:
There have been gays in the military serving this country since the beginning of time and if they are willing to put on the uniform to protect some of the sorry a$$ homophobics around here then they have my respect and as far as I know, the military has managed just fine with gays serving alongside the 'straight' people. We're all God's children and if we're alll made in His image, as the Bible says, then obviously we're all equal, straight and gay.


Is it equal that men and women can come together and reproduce and make babies while Nature makes it impossible, without exception, for those of the same sex to reproduce?? Nature is clear. It is unequivocal. No exceptions. Why??


My question for you is why does it matter? What do you care what two consenting adults do? Be specific. Dont sit there and lie and say you are all for it and support the ruling and then ask all the bigoted questions. Its really transparent, Derek.


SquatchTexas - 12/23/2010 at 11:25 AM

quote:
Natural born lover, are ya' squank?? Believe me, those questions were not aimed at Stiffsville, USA. Thanks.


Huh? You really shouldnt be drinking at this time...

quote:
Not a homophobe,


Yeah, right...all supporters of this ruling ask the same questions you are. Not only are you a terrible liar, you actually think people here are so stupid as to buy your shiat.

quote:
although it is cute when you try to be relevant and hip. Not even in the ball orchard, Duds.


Sorry, Derek, thats your schtick. A pudgy 50 yr old mamas boy living at home trying to be 'hip' aint my idea of something I would want to be trying to represent, but hey, it works for you.


SquatchTexas - 12/23/2010 at 11:29 AM

quote:
Marine Commandant General James F. Amos has stated several times that openly practicing homosexualism will kill Marines.

Homosexualists will get Marines killed. The top guy in the Marine Corps says so. He has been in the trenches, he knows what he's talking about. I am not going to second guess him.

Any senator that voted in support of repealling DADT has knowingly gone about weakening America's military and is willfully contributing to the murder of Marines.




....I dont know why Im even asking this....

So, if one military persons pov is apparently all it takes to convince you that this is bad, then what about all those high ranking members in the military past and present that support the repeal and say exactly the opposite of your guy? They have been in the trenches, and they know what they are talking about too. More importantly, why are you shiatting on those that have served that are gay? Were you ever in the military?


michaelsio - 12/23/2010 at 11:59 AM

quote:
Marine Commandant General James F. Amos has stated several times that openly practicing homosexualism will kill Marines.

Homosexualists will get Marines killed. The top guy in the Marine Corps says so. He has been in the trenches, he knows what he's talking about. I am not going to second guess him.

Any senator that voted in support of repealling DADT has knowingly gone about weakening America's military and is willfully contributing to the murder of Marines.




Wow, an anti-gay sentiment from a person with the screen name Midnite_Cowboy.


Can you feel the irony?


gondicar - 12/23/2010 at 12:38 PM

quote:
More sad evidence of how our nation's culture and values are on the decline.

Actually, the repeal of DADT is positive evidence of exactly the opposite.

[Edited on 12/23/2010 by gondicar]


jim - 12/23/2010 at 02:04 PM

quote:
The top guy in the Marine Corps says so. He has been in the trenches

Amos was a Marine aviator, so technically...he wasn't in the trenches.


jim - 12/23/2010 at 02:16 PM

Tangent here, but this is Ripley testimony on allowing women in ground combat. Again, sorry for the link, had a hard time copying for some reason. His argument has nothing to do with denying women rights. Some might call him old fashioned or maybe even chauvenistic (sp?), but his main goal is to preserve womanhood and femininty. Again, he is very adept at describing the battlefield, and its horrifying.

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/testimony-of-col-john- w-ripley-to-the-presidential-commission-on-the-assignment-of-women-in-the-a rmed-forces.html


dougrhon - 12/23/2010 at 05:17 PM

quote:
Tangent here, but this is Ripley testimony on allowing women in ground combat. Again, sorry for the link, had a hard time copying for some reason. His argument has nothing to do with denying women rights. Some might call him old fashioned or maybe even chauvenistic (sp?), but his main goal is to preserve womanhood and femininty. Again, he is very adept at describing the battlefield, and its horrifying.

http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/testimony-of-col-john- w-ripley-to-the-presidential-commission-on-the-assignment-of-women-in-the-a rmed-forces.html




Ripley from "Alien"? You would think she would favor women in combat.

[Edited on 12/23/2010 by dougrhon]


bigann - 12/23/2010 at 06:05 PM

quote:


Is it equal that men and women can come together and reproduce and make babies while Nature makes it impossible, without exception, for those of the same sex to reproduce?? Nature is clear. It is unequivocal. No exceptions. Why??


Is or is God not infallible? And are we or are we not all created in the image of God? Who are any of us to question the grand scheme of things? I know this for a fact......the message Jesus brought to the world was to love one another.....no exceptions, it's unequivocal.


bigann - 12/23/2010 at 06:18 PM

You might want to check out these links. Baron Von Stuben was an openly gay man.....now read about his contributions to the military of our country:

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/vonstub.htm

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/jsp/db/board.jsp?id=59814


DougMacKenzie - 12/23/2010 at 07:10 PM

I served in the Army from '76-'79. I was a medic in a MASH unit attached to the 5th infantry division and was never in a combat situation, but I can't remember one instance where sexuality or sexual orientation was ever an issue at all. We had lots of females in our unit, and there were never any issues or problems that I was aware of, and we were in the field training on a regular basis and out of country a couple of times for exercises. There were a few folks that we thought might be gay, but it was never an issue. I recall the vast majority of troops being dedicated to their job and professional code of conduct. I don't see how gender or sexual orientation would make one ounce of difference, especially in combat situations where lives depend on professional soldiering.


bigann - 12/23/2010 at 09:00 PM

Good post Doug. I think some of the more ridiculous comments in here have been made by people who sit around only imagining what it would be like to be in the military. From what the soldiers I've talked with have said, they are in agreement with what you wrote. Personally, if someone's firing at me, I don't care what race, religion or sexual orientation a person might be if they've got a gun and they're on my side.


dougrhon - 12/23/2010 at 09:08 PM

I am glad they passed this. Now it is time to stop talking about it and to never bring it up again. Soldiers are soldiers. There are perverts who are straight and perverts who are gay. Most gay people would never dream of acting unprofesionally and those that would would probably not end up serving in the military. It is and always was a non-issue.


bigann - 12/23/2010 at 09:41 PM

I totally agree.


dougrhon - 12/23/2010 at 09:49 PM

quote:
I totally agree.


Merry Christmas.


bigann - 12/23/2010 at 10:49 PM

Thank you. I hope you had a happy Hanukkah and that we all have a very safe new year!!


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/23/2010 at 11:04 PM

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Is it equal that men and women can come together and reproduce and make babies while Nature makes it impossible, without exception, for those of the same sex to reproduce?? Nature is clear. It is unequivocal. No exceptions. Why??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Is or is God not infallible? And are we or are we not all created in the image of God? Who are any of us to question the grand scheme of things? I know this for a fact......the message Jesus brought to the world was to love one another.....no exceptions, it's unequivocal.


I agree. Just wondering why that fact of life in the universe exists. And, still no answer.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Not a homophobe,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Yeah, right...all supporters of this ruling ask the same questions you are. Not only are you a terrible liar, you actually think people here are so stupid as to buy your shiat.



Squatch, in over your head by definition and by every aesthetic known to anyone who is the least bit creative. Once again, and hells yes I'm going to say it, I know more gay folks then you ever will and am friends with many and it has never been a problem with me. Heck, back in the 1980s when 2am closing times wasn't getting it done, depending on when the shrooms kicked in, the only afterhours dance clubs open until 5am were of the gay variety and they were a blast. My and my friend Lyn would New Order it up and sweat it out. Big fun, and the friendships spun off from there. Not a problem. Where did you think I got my gooseberry clippings last summer??

By the way, here's something right up your alley in the WSJ;

quote:
A Holiday Message From Ricky Gervais: Why I’m an Atheist


http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gerv ais-why-im-an-atheist/


bigann - 12/23/2010 at 11:33 PM

My and my friend Lyn would New Order it up and sweat it out.

I don't believe I'd have told that if I was you.


gondicar - 12/24/2010 at 02:54 AM

quote:
I am glad they passed this. Now it is time to stop talking about it and to never bring it up again. Soldiers are soldiers. There are perverts who are straight and perverts who are gay. Most gay people would never dream of acting unprofesionally and those that would would probably not end up serving in the military. It is and always was a non-issue.


+1

Although if it were me, there's an extra "gay" in there...

"Most people would never dream of acting unprofesionally and those that would would probably not end up serving in the military."


bigann - 12/24/2010 at 03:02 AM

quote:
"homophobe" is an anti-straight slur.


If the label fits, please feel free to wear it.


fanfrom-71 - 12/24/2010 at 03:12 AM

quote:
"homophobe" is an anti-straight slur.
So is that to say germaphobe is an anti bacteria slur?


dougrhon - 12/24/2010 at 04:06 AM

quote:
quote:
I am glad they passed this. Now it is time to stop talking about it and to never bring it up again. Soldiers are soldiers. There are perverts who are straight and perverts who are gay. Most gay people would never dream of acting unprofesionally and those that would would probably not end up serving in the military. It is and always was a non-issue.


+1

Although if it were me, there's an extra "gay" in there...

"Most people would never dream of acting unprofesionally and those that would would probably not end up serving in the military."


Good point.


bigann - 12/24/2010 at 04:22 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
"homophobe" is an anti-straight slur.


If the label fits, please feel free to wear it.


By whose standards, yours or mine?


Only you would know what fits and what doesn't. Not my call.


bigann - 12/24/2010 at 05:22 AM

Not at all....but in my world people respect other people no matter who or what they are. If you don't agree.....it's my world....you can always go home to yours.


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/24/2010 at 07:31 AM

quote:
My and my friend Lyn would New Order it up and sweat it out.

I don't believe I'd have told that if I was you.


That's all right. It was post-Joy Division so it is ok.


SquatchTexas - 12/24/2010 at 10:57 AM

quote:
I am glad they passed this. Now it is time to stop talking about it and to never bring it up again. Soldiers are soldiers. There are perverts who are straight and perverts who are gay. Most gay people would never dream of acting unprofesionally and those that would would probably not end up serving in the military. It is and always was a non-issue.


Very well said.


SquatchTexas - 12/24/2010 at 10:59 AM

quote:
"homophobe" is an anti-straight slur.


Try bigot on for size then, bareback.


SquatchTexas - 12/24/2010 at 11:16 AM

quote:
Squatch, in over your head by definition and by every aesthetic known to anyone who is the least bit creative.


I dont have to be the "most interesting man in the world" to point out that you are a closeted bigot.

quote:
Once again, and hells yes I'm going to say it, I know more gay folks then you ever will and am friends with many and it has never been a problem with me.


Surrrrrrreeeee it isnt. You support this so much, you have just been sitting here making bigoted, ignorant comments about the issue. Are you afraid to speak your mind. You are currently talking out of both sides of your face. Past that, who the **** cares how many gay people you know and what does that have to do with anything at all? You brag about how many blacks you know but that still hasnt stopped you from thinking you were the technical advisor to that 'jive' scene in "Airplane". All the bigots and the racists love to brag about their ____________ friends. You are no exception.

quote:
Heck, back in the 1980s when 2am closing times wasn't getting it done, depending on when the shrooms kicked in, the only afterhours dance clubs open until 5am were of the gay variety and they were a blast. My and my friend Lyn would New Order it up and sweat it out.


Ah, its becoming a bit more clear now.... 50+, living at home with mama, unmarried... "New Order it up"? I sense some repressed feelings.

quote:
Big fun, and the friendships spun off from there. Not a problem. Where did you think I got my gooseberry clippings last summer??


I dunno but more of your personal life is ending up in the spotlight than you may want.

quote:
By the way, here's something right up your alley in the WSJ;


How nice! Is this what Christianity is about this time of year? Merry Christmas, Derek. Maybe instead of attacking someone for their disbelief, you should be out doing something to help those less fortunate? (stand by for the diatribe on all the hundreds of people Derek is helping through the holiday season or a link to something completely irrelevant intended to make others see how 'deep' Derek is...yawn)


SquatchTexas - 12/24/2010 at 11:19 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
"homophobe" is an anti-straight slur.


If the label fits, please feel free to wear it.


By whose standards, yours or mine?


The standards of the English language? Sorry in advance for all the big words.

# a person who hates or fears homosexual people
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Homophobia is a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe

# A person who fears sameness or men
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homophobe

# homophobic - Relating to or characteristic of homophobia or homophobes
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homophobic

# homophobia - A pathological fear of mankind; Fear of homosexuals; Antipathy towards homosexuals
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homophobia

# homophobia - Literally an uncontrollable fear of homosexuals and of homosexuality, but the term is generally used for a negative and contemptuous attitude to same-sex sexual relationships and to those who participate in them.
bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl

# homophobia - The fear of homosexuality as expressed by demeaning images in media texts.
www.medialit.org/reading_room/article565.html

# homophobia - An irrational aversion to gay men and lesbians and to their lifestyle.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi

# homophobia - The irrational fear of homosexuals, homosexuality, or any behavior, belief, or attitude of self or others, which doesn't conform to rigid sex-role stereotypes. It is also the rejection of people considered gay or lesbian and of all things associated with them, for example, gender non-conformity. ...
www.upei.ca/studentservices/diversity-office/useful-definitions

# homophobia - Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their sexual orientation. See also sexism, racism, and religism. ...
www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_h.htm

# homophobia - Irrational fear of homosexual feelings, thoughts, behaviors, or people.
www.healthexpertadvice.org/medical_dictionary/index.php


DougMacKenzie - 12/24/2010 at 11:33 AM

quote:
"homophobe" is an anti-straight slur.

This is incorrect. See ST's post above. A phobia centers around irrational fear. The opposite of "homophobe" isn't "heterosexual", it's "homosexual." Your posts may say more about your sexuality than anyone else's. Often times the irrational fear centers on the phobic's uncertainty or lack of confidence concerning their own sexual identity. Is there something you're wanting to tell us?


RobJohnson - 12/24/2010 at 02:47 PM

A good friend of mine is a gay Air Force veteran, and I celebrate the day that hard-working, intelligent professionals like him aren't kicked out of the service for nothing more than being who they are.

My friend served under DADT, and it sounds like it was a very conflicted time for him. Even so, he did his job well and always behaved in a professional manner, as do the many gay service members who serve valiantly every day. He is now at the very top of his profession, probably one of the top 10 in his field. A more competent and reliable person you will not meet.

I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised when this goes into effect....and nothing happens. While some gay people can be flamboyant by nature, that isn't the kind of person who joins the Army. In other countries when they allowed gay people to serve, there wasn't some avalance of people coming out and "acting gay" and painting their tanks pink. They just continued to do their jobs, like they always have.


MikeBremer - 12/24/2010 at 03:47 PM


reneed - 12/24/2010 at 05:28 PM

quote:
I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised when this goes into effect....and nothing happens. While some gay people can be flamboyant by nature, that isn't the kind of person who joins the Army. In other countries when they allowed gay people to serve, there wasn't some avalance of people coming out and "acting gay" and painting their tanks pink. They just continued to do their jobs, like they always have.


imagine that,,,,,,,,,,,'gay' people 'actin' normal!!!!!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,,,,,,,,,good post man,,,,,,,,,thank you,,,,,,,,,,,merry christmas,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/24/2010 at 05:58 PM

The best line I heard from a gay friend was, "There's gay, and then there's parade gay." Nothing wrong with camp. Actually, even after DADT, there will still be a lot who still won't come out anyway.


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/24/2010 at 06:03 PM

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Heck, back in the 1980s when 2am closing times wasn't getting it done, depending on when the shrooms kicked in, the only afterhours dance clubs open until 5am were of the gay variety and they were a blast. My and my friend Lyn would New Order it up and sweat it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Ah, its becoming a bit more clear now.... 50+, living at home with mama, unmarried... "New Order it up"? I sense some repressed feelings.




You don't even know what I'm talking about.


Rydethwind - 12/24/2010 at 06:23 PM

Ok lets throw this monkey wrench into the fan...
new testament
Romans 1 18-27
1st Corinthians 6-9

old testament
leviticus 18-22 and 20-13



Now as most of you know I kinda follow a different look at these things religion that is but our country is founded on the bible we swear on it to testify at court , "in God we trust" is written on our money, so how does this all fit ? I have seen alot of talk here with no mention of the bible ..... In Native culture you could be anything you want but if you wanted to be a woman or feminine you usually took up a tipi and became a house keeper not a warrior..other than that I can see the distraction and given the mental way war is fought Hmmmm well it will be interesting ...


bigann - 12/24/2010 at 07:13 PM

As I've stated before, I personally believe the Bible was written by man....divine influence or not....and much of man's bias and the culture around at the time was written into it. We ARE ALL God's children, created in God's image no exceptions which means gay people are just as much part of the divine as anyone else. As for the military....I have every expectation they will go on as before and not a single soldier will be recruited into the gay pride.

And let me please remind everyone on here....some of us have already admitted we have gay or lesbian relatives who we love very much. Life is hard enough for everyone without letting prejudice and bias add more hurt.


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/24/2010 at 08:25 PM

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
My and my friend Lyn would New Order it up and sweat it out.

I don't believe I'd have told that if I was you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



That's all right. It was post-Joy Division so it is ok.


Speaking of which, first Christmas of the weekend in progress and Big Audio Dynamite makes an appearance. Been a while. Due up = Christmas Eve snow begins about 6pm and miniature tabletop cornhole to follow!!!


“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"
--John Quincy Adams in 1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.


dougrhon - 12/24/2010 at 08:40 PM

quote:
Ok lets throw this monkey wrench into the fan...
new testament
Romans 1 18-27
1st Corinthians 6-9

old testament
leviticus 18-22 and 20-13



Now as most of you know I kinda follow a different look at these things religion that is but our country is founded on the bible we swear on it to testify at court , "in God we trust" is written on our money, so how does this all fit ? I have seen alot of talk here with no mention of the bible ..... In Native culture you could be anything you want but if you wanted to be a woman or feminine you usually took up a tipi and became a house keeper not a warrior..other than that I can see the distraction and given the mental way war is fought Hmmmm well it will be interesting ...



The country was not founded on the bible. The country was founded on enlightenment principles of liberalism and the modern idea of limited government. The founders may have been Christians but the principles of the United States are not based on the bible except to the extent that ancient biblical principles permeated enlightenment ideas.


SquatchTexas - 12/24/2010 at 09:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Heck, back in the 1980s when 2am closing times wasn't getting it done, depending on when the shrooms kicked in, the only afterhours dance clubs open until 5am were of the gay variety and they were a blast. My and my friend Lyn would New Order it up and sweat it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Ah, its becoming a bit more clear now.... 50+, living at home with mama, unmarried... "New Order it up"? I sense some repressed feelings.




You don't even know what I'm talking about.


Wanna bet? Its ok to be who you are, Derek.


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/24/2010 at 09:45 PM

Almost time for the Festivus 'Clapping of the Hamsters!'


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/24/2010 at 09:52 PM


Rydethwind - 12/24/2010 at 10:55 PM

quote:
quote:
Ok lets throw this monkey wrench into the fan...
new testament
Romans 1 18-27
1st Corinthians 6-9

old testament
leviticus 18-22 and 20-13



Now as most of you know I kinda follow a different look at these things religion that is but our country is founded on the bible we swear on it to testify at court , "in God we trust" is written on our money, so how does this all fit ? I have seen alot of talk here with no mention of the bible ..... In Native culture you could be anything you want but if you wanted to be a woman or feminine you usually took up a tipi and became a house keeper not a warrior..other than that I can see the distraction and given the mental way war is fought Hmmmm well it will be interesting ...



The country was not founded on the bible. The country was founded on enlightenment principles of liberalism and the modern idea of limited government. The founders may have been Christians but the principles of the United States are not based on the bible except to the extent that ancient biblical principles permeated enlightenment ideas.


Sorry I have to disagree all the founding fathers built the foundations for this country based upon their religious beliefs it is what they knew if people in Salem and other parts of the country could burn people because they thought they were witches, and persecute native peoples because they weren't believers don't try and scape goat out with that answer. The bible is the driving force behind most political decisions even if we do not believe in them... why do you think there is the cry that our morality is disintegrating..... but the question is who's morality? not mine but i do believe in family and I also do not want a homosexual teacher telling my child that their lifestyle is normal or ok ... . I myself do not understand Homosexuals but if that is the life they want to live I am ok with that as long as they do not force it on other people.
I feel the same about religion if you want to do it fine but do not force it on me I have my own....
Please try again I really found that answer to be less than convincing.

How can soldiers not be persecuted if they are known Homosexuals that is the crux of my question.. I do not believe there is any way and that was the reason for DADT...

All people in this country should have the right to live as they want but it can not effect other people.. I mean we have everything from Jim Jones Types to complete pacifist's all have a right to live their lives ...

But the military is run on order and control everyone must be the same so their is no differences so I am not sure that this will not be harder on Homosexuals than a DADT policy Maybe I am wrong only time will tell.


bigann - 12/25/2010 at 03:12 AM

Disagreeing with people, getting frustrated with people and on occassion, not even liking someone doesn't mean I don't respect them for being part of the human experience.


RobJohnson - 12/25/2010 at 03:17 AM

Rydethwind, although our Founding Fathers were religious/spiritual men, it is a widespread fallacy to assuem that they were Bible-thumping fundamentalists like the Puritans who burned witches in Salem. In fact, they were just about completely the opposite of people like Cotton Mather, etc.

One little known fact is that Thomas Jefferson published his own version of the Bible, which edited out all the miracles and so forth beacuse Jefferson thought that was a bunch of superstitious hokum. He felt that the important thing was Jesus' message of love and compassion, not whether Jesus turned water into wine, rose from the dead, etc.

My favorite Jefferson quote, one that leaves no doubt that he is not a fan of organized religion...


"The clergy are all in opposition to me, and very well they should be, for I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of Man."


dougrhon - 12/25/2010 at 04:56 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Ok lets throw this monkey wrench into the fan...
new testament
Romans 1 18-27
1st Corinthians 6-9

old testament
leviticus 18-22 and 20-13



Now as most of you know I kinda follow a different look at these things religion that is but our country is founded on the bible we swear on it to testify at court , "in God we trust" is written on our money, so how does this all fit ? I have seen alot of talk here with no mention of the bible ..... In Native culture you could be anything you want but if you wanted to be a woman or feminine you usually took up a tipi and became a house keeper not a warrior..other than that I can see the distraction and given the mental way war is fought Hmmmm well it will be interesting ...



The country was not founded on the bible. The country was founded on enlightenment principles of liberalism and the modern idea of limited government. The founders may have been Christians but the principles of the United States are not based on the bible except to the extent that ancient biblical principles permeated enlightenment ideas.


Sorry I have to disagree all the founding fathers built the foundations for this country based upon their religious beliefs it is what they knew if people in Salem and other parts of the country could burn people because they thought they were witches, and persecute native peoples because they weren't believers don't try and scape goat out with that answer. The bible is the driving force behind most political decisions even if we do not believe in them... why do you think there is the cry that our morality is disintegrating..... but the question is who's morality? not mine but i do believe in family and I also do not want a homosexual teacher telling my child that their lifestyle is normal or ok ... . I myself do not understand Homosexuals but if that is the life they want to live I am ok with that as long as they do not force it on other people.
I feel the same about religion if you want to do it fine but do not force it on me I have my own....
Please try again I really found that answer to be less than convincing.

How can soldiers not be persecuted if they are known Homosexuals that is the crux of my question.. I do not believe there is any way and that was the reason for DADT...

All people in this country should have the right to live as they want but it can not effect other people.. I mean we have everything from Jim Jones Types to complete pacifist's all have a right to live their lives ...

But the military is run on order and control everyone must be the same so their is no differences so I am not sure that this will not be harder on Homosexuals than a DADT policy Maybe I am wrong only time will tell.


With respect I disagree Some of the colonies were founded based on religious beliefs or by religious groups but I assume you are referring to the United States that emerged after the Revolutionary War and shortly thereafter ratified the Constitution. Although obviously the founders can be found to have made religious statements as they were all to one extent or another believing Christians, the Constitution and the idea behind the American state was not founded on Christianity or religious ideas but on liberal philosophical ideas most importantly those of Locke and Hobbes. Read the Federalist Papers or any other important documents relating to the Constitution and the only thing about religion is that the state ought to neither establish it nor prevent the free exercise of it.


dougrhon - 12/25/2010 at 05:02 AM

quote:
Rydethwind, although our Founding Fathers were religious/spiritual men, it is a widespread fallacy to assuem that they were Bible-thumping fundamentalists like the Puritans who burned witches in Salem. In fact, they were just about completely the opposite of people like Cotton Mather, etc.

One little known fact is that Thomas Jefferson published his own version of the Bible, which edited out all the miracles and so forth beacuse Jefferson thought that was a bunch of superstitious hokum. He felt that the important thing was Jesus' message of love and compassion, not whether Jesus turned water into wine, rose from the dead, etc.

My favorite Jefferson quote, one that leaves no doubt that he is not a fan of organized religion...


"The clergy are all in opposition to me, and very well they should be, for I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of Man."


Jefferson was probably the least religious of all the framers. Many argue he was not a theist at all. I think Rydethewind may be thinking of the original founding of some of the colonies such as Massacheusetts and Pennsylvania which clearly were founded by religious groups. But that was over one hundred years prior to independence. There is quite simply nothing in the history of the revolutionary period to suggest that Christianity or religion drove the founders from Washington to Adams to Hamilton to Franklin or any others in any way.

Incidentally my hero Abraham Lincoln was clearly a man who became infused with a religious spirit as many of his great speeches during the civil war will attest. It is also well known that Lincoln NEVER became a member of an organized Church. There is a great anecdote from when Lincoln ran for Congress as a younger man. As part of his campaign he decided to attend the Sunday service at a local Church. The Minister was railing against non-believers and, not realizing that Lincoln was in the back thundered "Does Mr. Lincoln have any idea where he is going!" Lincoln stood up smiled and slowly said "I reckon he's going to Congress."


SquatchTexas - 12/25/2010 at 11:15 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
"homophobe" is an anti-straight slur.

This is incorrect. See ST's post above. A phobia centers around irrational fear.


What if you replace irrational fear with disgust? Is it still homophobia?


Depends on how you deal with it I guess. Im sure you arent disgusted by two hot women going at it.


Rydethwind - 12/25/2010 at 02:38 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Ok lets throw this monkey wrench into the fan...
new testament
Romans 1 18-27
1st Corinthians 6-9

old testament
leviticus 18-22 and 20-13



Now as most of you know I kinda follow a different look at these things religion that is but our country is founded on the bible we swear on it to testify at court , "in God we trust" is written on our money, so how does this all fit ? I have seen alot of talk here with no mention of the bible ..... In Native culture you could be anything you want but if you wanted to be a woman or feminine you usually took up a tipi and became a house keeper not a warrior..other than that I can see the distraction and given the mental way war is fought Hmmmm well it will be interesting ...



The country was not founded on the bible. The country was founded on enlightenment principles of liberalism and the modern idea of limited government. The founders may have been Christians but the principles of the United States are not based on the bible except to the extent that ancient biblical principles permeated enlightenment ideas.


Sorry I have to disagree all the founding fathers built the foundations for this country based upon their religious beliefs it is what they knew if people in Salem and other parts of the country could burn people because they thought they were witches, and persecute native peoples because they weren't believers don't try and scape goat out with that answer. The bible is the driving force behind most political decisions even if we do not believe in them... why do you think there is the cry that our morality is disintegrating..... but the question is who's morality? not mine but i do believe in family and I also do not want a homosexual teacher telling my child that their lifestyle is normal or ok ... . I myself do not understand Homosexuals but if that is the life they want to live I am ok with that as long as they do not force it on other people.
I feel the same about religion if you want to do it fine but do not force it on me I have my own....
Please try again I really found that answer to be less than convincing.

How can soldiers not be persecuted if they are known Homosexuals that is the crux of my question.. I do not believe there is any way and that was the reason for DADT...

All people in this country should have the right to live as they want but it can not effect other people.. I mean we have everything from Jim Jones Types to complete pacifist's all have a right to live their lives ...

But the military is run on order and control everyone must be the same so their is no differences so I am not sure that this will not be harder on Homosexuals than a DADT policy Maybe I am wrong only time will tell.


With respect I disagree Some of the colonies were founded based on religious beliefs or by religious groups but I assume you are referring to the United States that emerged after the Revolutionary War and shortly thereafter ratified the Constitution. Although obviously the founders can be found to have made religious statements as they were all to one extent or another believing Christians, the Constitution and the idea behind the American state was not founded on Christianity or religious ideas but on liberal philosophical ideas most importantly those of Locke and Hobbes. Read the Federalist Papers or any other important documents relating to the Constitution and the only thing about religion is that the state ought to neither establish it nor prevent the free exercise of it.


If that is the case I ask again why does a president have to swear on the Bible to become president? why is it written on our money "In God we Trust" why do you swear on the bible to testify at a court...? This hardly seems like separation of Church and state. We (this country) go all over the world sticking our noses in other peoples business with the underlying premise of God is on our side, we are fighting the good fight .. etc this was the attitude of the Crusaders this Idea or belief has been going on for 1000 years and this country sadly is still displaying this attitude it is somehow like a disease.. so I still wonder how can Homosexuals fit into the Military if it is known they are such? BTW your last post was a good one.. and I mean no disrespect by mine just trying to get a clear idea of what people thing as opposed to what they do..


upton_ogoode - 12/25/2010 at 03:24 PM

Mike, I think I follow your point. Why do we proclaim Christianity while practicing what many perceive as the opposite. I believe that many of the founders were spiritual Christians who had seen the damage done by state sanctioning of faith, and wanted the union to have no part in it.
For those who say we are a "Christian" nation, I ask:
What is your favorite scripture from the Declaration or the Constitution?
How many times is Jesus mentioned or invoked in these documents?
In what part of the Constitution is salvation mentioned?
Where in the Constitution is the wording "In God We Trust" used?
Religion flourishes here precisely because of their wisdom, not in spite of it.
So, Merry Christmas to all.
Unless you're one of those "There's a war on Christmas" types.
To those I say: "Have a happy celebration of the arbitrary fixation of the date of birth for the deity of your choice."
Specifically to Mike, Merry Christmas and have another ham and biscuit! Grits are on the way as soon as the Readyville mill opens back up.


woodsdweller - 12/25/2010 at 04:09 PM

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."
-George Washington

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or
no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My mind is my
own church." -Thomas Paine

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The Bible is not my book, and Chrsitianity is not my religion. I could never
give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
-Abraham Lincoln


bigann - 12/25/2010 at 05:31 PM

The founding fathers had nothing to do with adding In God We Trust to the money:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust


dougrhon - 12/25/2010 at 07:05 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Ok lets throw this monkey wrench into the fan...
new testament
Romans 1 18-27
1st Corinthians 6-9

old testament
leviticus 18-22 and 20-13



Now as most of you know I kinda follow a different look at these things religion that is but our country is founded on the bible we swear on it to testify at court , "in God we trust" is written on our money, so how does this all fit ? I have seen alot of talk here with no mention of the bible ..... In Native culture you could be anything you want but if you wanted to be a woman or feminine you usually took up a tipi and became a house keeper not a warrior..other than that I can see the distraction and given the mental way war is fought Hmmmm well it will be interesting ...



The country was not founded on the bible. The country was founded on enlightenment principles of liberalism and the modern idea of limited government. The founders may have been Christians but the principles of the United States are not based on the bible except to the extent that ancient biblical principles permeated enlightenment ideas.


Sorry I have to disagree all the founding fathers built the foundations for this country based upon their religious beliefs it is what they knew if people in Salem and other parts of the country could burn people because they thought they were witches, and persecute native peoples because they weren't believers don't try and scape goat out with that answer. The bible is the driving force behind most political decisions even if we do not believe in them... why do you think there is the cry that our morality is disintegrating..... but the question is who's morality? not mine but i do believe in family and I also do not want a homosexual teacher telling my child that their lifestyle is normal or ok ... . I myself do not understand Homosexuals but if that is the life they want to live I am ok with that as long as they do not force it on other people.
I feel the same about religion if you want to do it fine but do not force it on me I have my own....
Please try again I really found that answer to be less than convincing.

How can soldiers not be persecuted if they are known Homosexuals that is the crux of my question.. I do not believe there is any way and that was the reason for DADT...

All people in this country should have the right to live as they want but it can not effect other people.. I mean we have everything from Jim Jones Types to complete pacifist's all have a right to live their lives ...

But the military is run on order and control everyone must be the same so their is no differences so I am not sure that this will not be harder on Homosexuals than a DADT policy Maybe I am wrong only time will tell.


With respect I disagree Some of the colonies were founded based on religious beliefs or by religious groups but I assume you are referring to the United States that emerged after the Revolutionary War and shortly thereafter ratified the Constitution. Although obviously the founders can be found to have made religious statements as they were all to one extent or another believing Christians, the Constitution and the idea behind the American state was not founded on Christianity or religious ideas but on liberal philosophical ideas most importantly those of Locke and Hobbes. Read the Federalist Papers or any other important documents relating to the Constitution and the only thing about religion is that the state ought to neither establish it nor prevent the free exercise of it.


If that is the case I ask again why does a president have to swear on the Bible to become president? why is it written on our money "In God we Trust" why do you swear on the bible to testify at a court...? This hardly seems like separation of Church and state. We (this country) go all over the world sticking our noses in other peoples business with the underlying premise of God is on our side, we are fighting the good fight .. etc this was the attitude of the Crusaders this Idea or belief has been going on for 1000 years and this country sadly is still displaying this attitude it is somehow like a disease.. so I still wonder how can Homosexuals fit into the Military if it is known they are such? BTW your last post was a good one.. and I mean no disrespect by mine just trying to get a clear idea of what people thing as opposed to what they do..


If you want to know why we do those things read the Supreme Court Lemon cases which deal with this aspect of Church and State. But nonetheless, the fact that money has a generic "In God We Trust" motto in no way means this country was founded on religious Christian as opposed to liberal enlightenment principles. One does not follow from the other.


dougrhon - 12/25/2010 at 07:06 PM

quote:
Mike, I think I follow your point. Why do we proclaim Christianity while practicing what many perceive as the opposite. I believe that many of the founders were spiritual Christians who had seen the damage done by state sanctioning of faith, and wanted the union to have no part in it.
For those who say we are a "Christian" nation, I ask:
What is your favorite scripture from the Declaration or the Constitution?
How many times is Jesus mentioned or invoked in these documents?
In what part of the Constitution is salvation mentioned?
Where in the Constitution is the wording "In God We Trust" used?
Religion flourishes here precisely because of their wisdom, not in spite of it.
So, Merry Christmas to all.
Unless you're one of those "There's a war on Christmas" types.
To those I say: "Have a happy celebration of the arbitrary fixation of the date of birth for the deity of your choice."
Specifically to Mike, Merry Christmas and have another ham and biscuit! Grits are on the way as soon as the Readyville mill opens back up.


Good post. You are absolutely right. It is possible to be a believing Christian and still found a nation on liberal secular prinicples.


dougrhon - 12/25/2010 at 07:06 PM

quote:
The founding fathers had nothing to do with adding In God We Trust to the money:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust


That's true.


fanfrom-71 - 12/25/2010 at 07:28 PM

quote:
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."
-George Washington

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or
no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My mind is my
own church." -Thomas Paine

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The Bible is not my book, and Chrsitianity is not my religion. I could never
give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
-Abraham Lincoln
God those are some great quotes.


Rydethwind - 12/25/2010 at 11:07 PM

Some great posts on the subject for sure and those are good quotes... but I still am not convinced the US is made up of all sorts of religions and races but is all equal? I don't think so the attitude brought here by Europeans was that they some how had the right to conquer and pillage because they were somehow superior and that anyone that did not believe the way they did was inferior and this mentality still persists today.. Christians today still go to other countries trying to convert people away from their religion and this just substantiates what I am trying to say, by telling another that their way is not the right way you are telling them their way is WRONG there by making a enemy instead of a friend . This way of thinking says to me that any group Homosexual or whatever can not get a fair shake in the military simple because of prejudice thinking that is attached to this society's backwards way of thinking.

OK I am done Merry Christmas everyone remember the good lessons Love one another... do more for others than you do for yourself.. Peace


DerekFromCincinnati - 12/26/2010 at 05:18 AM

quote:
Some great posts on the subject for sure and those are good quotes... but I still am not convinced the US is made up of all sorts of religions and races but is all equal? I don't think so the attitude brought here by Europeans was that they some how had the right to conquer and pillage because they were somehow superior and that anyone that did not believe the way they did was inferior and this mentality still persists today.. Christians today still go to other countries trying to convert people away from their religion and this just substantiates what I am trying to say, by telling another that their way is not the right way you are telling them their way is WRONG there by making a enemy instead of a friend . This way of thinking says to me that any group Homosexual or whatever can not get a fair shake in the military simple because of prejudice thinking that is attached to this society's backwards way of thinking.




Mike - question - are you saying that openly gay males were accepted by the Tribes back in the day?????


bigann - 12/26/2010 at 07:20 AM

I think the answer to that question was already posted earlier in the thread.


SquatchTexas - 12/26/2010 at 11:24 AM

quote:


Mike - question - are you saying that openly gay males were accepted by the Tribes back in the day?????


Moving goalposts again....


Rydethwind - 12/26/2010 at 02:04 PM

quote:
quote:
Some great posts on the subject for sure and those are good quotes... but I still am not convinced the US is made up of all sorts of religions and races but is all equal? I don't think so the attitude brought here by Europeans was that they some how had the right to conquer and pillage because they were somehow superior and that anyone that did not believe the way they did was inferior and this mentality still persists today.. Christians today still go to other countries trying to convert people away from their religion and this just substantiates what I am trying to say, by telling another that their way is not the right way you are telling them their way is WRONG there by making a enemy instead of a friend . This way of thinking says to me that any group Homosexual or whatever can not get a fair shake in the military simple because of prejudice thinking that is attached to this society's backwards way of thinking.




Mike - question - are you saying that openly gay males were accepted by the Tribes back in the day?????


Absolutely they were what you were in life was between you and your God there were many who chose to live as a woman that were men and there are legends of female warriors as well... was it common ? I do not think so but it was probably as common as "contraries" who by their own actions did everything backwards, when they met you they said goodbye, when they bathed they used dirt etc there are many thing that this society deemed wierd but was excepted by NA's...


bigann - 12/26/2010 at 06:39 PM

Well stated and that's how it should be today. We are who we are and everyone has the right to be accepted that way.


Rydethwind - 12/26/2010 at 10:04 PM

quote:
Well stated and that's how it should be today. We are who we are and everyone has the right to be accepted that way.


Ann I agree with you that is the way it should be but why is it NOT that way? my take is the bible not that it is the problem it is man who uses it in a bad way or it's influences If everyone lived by the principles in the bible we would be a lot better off but some how it has become blurred and biased..


bigann - 12/26/2010 at 11:39 PM

There are some very strange principles in the Bible that I'd hope no one would embrace today.....I think we'd all be better off if we lived by what we know inerently is right and wrong rather than what someone or something tells us is good or bad. Unless someone is a sociopath, they know when they've done something wrong or behaved in a way that goes against the God spark within us all. At least that's what I've found to be true personally and with the people I know.


JimSheridan - 12/27/2010 at 12:36 AM

Because the Bible was compiled of different stories from different times and different storytellers, it does not cohere. It contradicts itself. No one can really live by the Bible; people at best pick and choose what they want from that book.


DougMacKenzie - 12/27/2010 at 12:25 PM

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 22:34-40

The Bible further explains what love is, who our nieghbor is, and what it takes to be abll to love in this way. Seems pretty straightforward to me. All the rest is just commentary on different people's struggle with this truth over the centuries.

[Edited on 12/27/2010 by DougMacKenzie]


Billastro - 12/27/2010 at 05:39 PM

quote:
I think we'd all be better off if we lived by what we know inerently is right and wrong rather than what someone or something tells us is good or bad. Unless someone is a sociopath, they know when they've done something wrong or behaved in a way that goes against the God spark within us all. At least that's what I've found to be true personally and with the people I know.
Why should anyone take this statement seriously? A look at newspapers, the Whipping Post, and everything in between will make it clear that people all across the spectrum disagree vehemently about what's right and wrong. If the sense of right and wrong is inherent (or inerrant, not sure what you mean), why don't children display it even before they've had a chance to be "corrupted" by society? Because they're inherently sinful.

Personal example: I was in sixth grade (1961) the first time I heard about homosexuals. Nobody told me the behavior was wrong, but I knew it then in my core, and I know it now. Eventually I learned and understood that it's the action, not the personal essence that's the issue.

Another: I used not to care about abortion, then I figured it was a woman's right, but eventually I came to understand that it's the killing of a child who can't defend himself. I learned and understood better.

A third: I've mentioned this before: I was at the sentencing for a child molester, where he said, "In my heart I know I didn't do anything wrong." He got 26 years for raping a four-year-old girl.

You contradict yourself whenever you disagree with someone here. We post what we know in our hearts (or whatever one cares to call the foundation) to be right, but we still argue, quarrel, etc. day after week after month after year. I can't take your claim seriously, since your actions don't align with your words. If they do, can you demonstrate the truth of what you say?

Billastro


bigann - 12/27/2010 at 06:23 PM

Who p*ssed in your Wheaties today? You want an answer, I'll give you one......think of the ten commandments....then think of how you feel about each one. You already know it's wrong to steal, lie, cheat, kill. Did you need the commandments to tell you what you already know? As to what people know is right and wrong......we all walk our own paths with our own purposes on earth. I don't know what your reason for being here is and I don't care. I'm having enough trouble just finding my own way and keeping it in the midde of the road.

You can attack my thoughts if you want to....I really don't care what you think since long ago I figured out where you're coming from and it's a place I don't care to be. You see it your way, I see it mine.......yours is right for the life you're leading, mine is right for the path I'm on. Any further converstaion with you would be foolish and without purpose.


Billastro - 12/27/2010 at 06:57 PM

quote:
Who p*ssed in your Wheaties today? You want an answer, I'll give you one......think of the ten commandments....then think of how you feel about each one. You already know it's wrong to steal, lie, cheat, kill. Did you need the commandments to tell you what you already know? As to what people know is right and wrong......we all walk our own paths with our own purposes on earth. I don't know what your reason for being here is and I don't care. I'm having enough trouble just finding my own way and keeping it in the midde of the road.

You can attack my thoughts if you want to....I really don't care what you think since long ago I figured out where you're coming from and it's a place I don't care to be. You see it your way, I see it mine.......yours is right for the life you're leading, mine is right for the path I'm on. Any further converstaion with you would be foolish and without purpose.
I'm attacking your hypocrisy, that's all . You're so inconsistent that debating with you is like grabbing smoke. Not worth the effort.

Billastro


Bhawk - 12/27/2010 at 06:58 PM

Where's the hypocrisy?


Mike - 12/27/2010 at 08:25 PM

What exactly is a "God spark?"




Mike


bigann - 12/27/2010 at 08:30 PM

quote:
What exactly is a "God spark?"
Mike


It's what connects us to everyone and everything.....as I've said before, if you remove a thimble full of water from the ocean, it's still ocean water and when you pour it back from where it came, it becomes part of the ocean once more. I believe we're all born into this life carrying a 'God spark' that keeps us connected to God, the universal energies, whatever you want to call it and it's what makes us all truly brothers and sisters. And when we return 'home' we all become one again. Some may not believe that, I do.


Peachypetewi - 12/27/2010 at 08:50 PM

Personal example: I was in sixth grade (1961) the first time I heard about homosexuals. Nobody told me the behavior was wrong, but I knew it then in my core, and I know it now. Eventually I learned and understood that it's the action, not the personal essence that's the issue.

In this day and age I don't understand this example at all. Biologists have determined and known for quite a long time now, people are genetically wired to be gay, you don't learn to be gay, it's not a lifestyle decision or choice, it is in your DNA/ genes, it's the way you are born.


DougMacKenzie - 12/27/2010 at 08:57 PM

quote:
Personal example: I was in sixth grade (1961) the first time I heard about homosexuals. Nobody told me the behavior was wrong, but I knew it then in my core, and I know it now. Eventually I learned and understood that it's the action, not the personal essence that's the issue.

In this day and age I don't understand this example at all. Biologists have determined and known for quite a long time now, people are genetically wired to be gay, you don't learn to be gay, it's not a lifestyle decision or choice, it is in your DNA/ genes, it's the way you are born.

We recently had a long discussion that included this idea here in the WP. As of yet, as far as any of us were able to determine, there has been no gene isolated that determines a predispostion for sexual preference. Could you post a link to the information you have stating otherwise?
Also, could you site some sources that explain scientifically human behavior is not a choice?


bigann - 12/27/2010 at 09:14 PM

I'm a heterosexual, I was born heterosexual and I'll die heterosexual.....sleeping with a man is my choice, but not my proclivity to be attracted to men. Homosexuals are no different. Of course having a partner of the same sex is their 'choice' but they are born with those longings. I don't see the problem other than some straight people consider 'gay' a disease they can catch if they get too close.


Bhawk - 12/27/2010 at 09:41 PM

quote:
quote:
Personal example: I was in sixth grade (1961) the first time I heard about homosexuals. Nobody told me the behavior was wrong, but I knew it then in my core, and I know it now. Eventually I learned and understood that it's the action, not the personal essence that's the issue.

In this day and age I don't understand this example at all. Biologists have determined and known for quite a long time now, people are genetically wired to be gay, you don't learn to be gay, it's not a lifestyle decision or choice, it is in your DNA/ genes, it's the way you are born.

We recently had a long discussion that included this idea here in the WP. As of yet, as far as any of us were able to determine, there has been no gene isolated that determines a predispostion for sexual preference. Could you post a link to the information you have stating otherwise?
Also, could you site some sources that explain scientifically human behavior is not a choice?


I think it's clearly obvious, and the insistence that someone has to "prove" why people find other people attractive based on gender is simply judgment of others manifesting itself as something else.

I look at a woman and find her attractive in a sexual way. I look at a man and do not. A gay man does not find women sexually attractive in any way, but does find men sexually attractive. Why does he have to "scientifically prove" himself and I don't?


bigann - 12/27/2010 at 09:44 PM

Excellent post.


DougMacKenzie - 12/27/2010 at 10:01 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Personal example: I was in sixth grade (1961) the first time I heard about homosexuals. Nobody told me the behavior was wrong, but I knew it then in my core, and I know it now. Eventually I learned and understood that it's the action, not the personal essence that's the issue.

In this day and age I don't understand this example at all. Biologists have determined and known for quite a long time now, people are genetically wired to be gay, you don't learn to be gay, it's not a lifestyle decision or choice, it is in your DNA/ genes, it's the way you are born.

We recently had a long discussion that included this idea here in the WP. As of yet, as far as any of us were able to determine, there has been no gene isolated that determines a predispostion for sexual preference. Could you post a link to the information you have stating otherwise?
Also, could you site some sources that explain scientifically human behavior is not a choice?


I think it's clearly obvious, and the insistence that someone has to "prove" why people find other people attractive based on gender is simply judgment of others manifesting itself as something else.

I look at a woman and find her attractive in a sexual way. I look at a man and do not. A gay man does not find women sexually attractive in any way, but does find men sexually attractive. Why does he have to "scientifically prove" himself and I don't?


No one is asking anyone to "scientifically prove themselves"; A statement was made that biologists had identified a genetic link that wires homosexuals genetically to be gay. I am unaware that such a link has been established, and asked for a reference that supports the statement, regarding homosexuality or any sexual orientation. The statement was also made that being gay is not a lifestyle decision or choice. I'm asking for supporting evidence about ANY human lifestyle decision that is not a choice. I'm a science guy fascinated by the workings of the human mind and behavior and am very interested in topics that deal with either or both. The same statements are made every time this issue comes up. I ask these same questions about said statements every time and as yet have no responses to the questions.

[Edited on 12/27/2010 by DougMacKenzie]


bigann - 12/27/2010 at 10:24 PM

One of the confusing elements of any discussion are the varying sexual behaviors among all forms of sexuality. Straight people are very diverse in their sexual preferences....i.e. bondage and S&M as opposed to less 'creative' sex. In the gay community, there are equal variations that also include bi-sexuality. There are people who are totally gay or straight and there are those who are bi-sexual. There are straight cross-dressers, tranvestites, etc. which makes the topic incredibly convoluted.

Personaly, pull out a whip and chains and I'm out the door, but because it's 'straight' behavior, people tend to not see it as abnormal. Who are we to judge what is right or wrong....some things just are.


Bhawk - 12/27/2010 at 10:32 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Personal example: I was in sixth grade (1961) the first time I heard about homosexuals. Nobody told me the behavior was wrong, but I knew it then in my core, and I know it now. Eventually I learned and understood that it's the action, not the personal essence that's the issue.

In this day and age I don't understand this example at all. Biologists have determined and known for quite a long time now, people are genetically wired to be gay, you don't learn to be gay, it's not a lifestyle decision or choice, it is in your DNA/ genes, it's the way you are born.

We recently had a long discussion that included this idea here in the WP. As of yet, as far as any of us were able to determine, there has been no gene isolated that determines a predispostion for sexual preference. Could you post a link to the information you have stating otherwise?
Also, could you site some sources that explain scientifically human behavior is not a choice?


I think it's clearly obvious, and the insistence that someone has to "prove" why people find other people attractive based on gender is simply judgment of others manifesting itself as something else.

I look at a woman and find her attractive in a sexual way. I look at a man and do not. A gay man does not find women sexually attractive in any way, but does find men sexually attractive. Why does he have to "scientifically prove" himself and I don't?


No one is asking anyone to "scientifically prove themselves"; A statement was made that biologists had identified a genetic link that wires homosexuals genetically to be gay. I am unaware that such a link has been established, and asked for a reference that supports the statement, regarding homosexuality or any sexual orientation. The statement was also made that being gay is not a lifestyle decision or choice. I'm asking for supporting evidence about ANY human lifestyle decision that is not a choice. I'm a science guy fascinated by the workings of the human mind and behavior and am very interested in topics that deal with either or both. The same statements are made every time this issue comes up. I ask these same questions about said statements every time and as yet have no responses to the questions.



What response are you after?

If I look at my wife and think man, she's got a fantastic, ahem, rear end, along with other various and sundry thoughts, are you saying those thoughts are a choice I'm making? How is it different from, say, smelling food cooking and I get hungry or my mouth waters? To say that all human behavior is based on choice totally disregards behavior that is instinctual.

You keep using the word "lifestyle." OK, sure. It's a choice if I'm gay that I have an interest in picking matching colors, having an eye for tasteful interior decorations or wearing a$$less chaps when I'm feeling frisky. Those are basic lifestyle choices. I'm talking about the instinct of attraction.


DougMacKenzie - 12/27/2010 at 10:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Personal example: I was in sixth grade (1961) the first time I heard about homosexuals. Nobody told me the behavior was wrong, but I knew it then in my core, and I know it now. Eventually I learned and understood that it's the action, not the personal essence that's the issue.

In this day and age I don't understand this example at all. Biologists have determined and known for quite a long time now, people are genetically wired to be gay, you don't learn to be gay, it's not a lifestyle decision or choice, it is in your DNA/ genes, it's the way you are born.

We recently had a long discussion that included this idea here in the WP. As of yet, as far as any of us were able to determine, there has been no gene isolated that determines a predispostion for sexual preference. Could you post a link to the information you have stating otherwise?
Also, could you site some sources that explain scientifically human behavior is not a choice?



I think it's clearly obvious, and the insistence that someone has to "prove" why people find other people attractive based on gender is simply judgment of others manifesting itself as something else.

I look at a woman and find her attractive in a sexual way. I look at a man and do not. A gay man does not find women sexually attractive in any way, but does find men sexually attractive. Why does he have to "scientifically prove" himself and I don't?


No one is asking anyone to "scientifically prove themselves"; A statement was made that biologists had identified a genetic link that wires homosexuals genetically to be gay. I am unaware that such a link has been established, and asked for a reference that supports the statement, regarding homosexuality or any sexual orientation. The statement was also made that being gay is not a lifestyle decision or choice. I'm asking for supporting evidence about ANY human lifestyle decision that is not a choice. I'm a science guy fascinated by the workings of the human mind and behavior and am very interested in topics that deal with either or both. The same statements are made every time this issue comes up. I ask these same questions about said statements every time and as yet have no responses to the questions.



What response are you after?

If I look at my wife and think man, she's got a fantastic, ahem, rear end, along with other various and sundry thoughts, are you saying those thoughts are a choice I'm making? How is it different from, say, smelling food cooking and I get hungry or my mouth waters? To say that all human behavior is based on choice totally disregards behavior that is instinctual.

You keep using the word "lifestyle." OK, sure. It's a choice if I'm gay that I have an interest in picking matching colors, having an eye for tasteful interior decorations or wearing a$$less chaps when I'm feeling frisky. Those are basic lifestyle choices. I'm talking about the instinct of attraction.

The bolded parts are the questions I'm asking. Which human behavior is instinctual? The choice of behavior, the ability to weigh options and choose which behaviors to exhibit is one of the bery things that distinguishes us from other animals. Autonomic nervous system responses are not behavior; how we choose to deal with them is.


bigann - 12/27/2010 at 11:00 PM

From what was written, I gather the point is being made that attraction to someone of the same sex might be instinct but the decision to be with someone of the same sex is choice.....just like a guy might get aroused by a woman who isn't his wife but acting on it is choice?

That being the case, it still equates to the belief that gays don't have the right to act upon their attraction but straight people do and I find faullt with that thought process.


DougMacKenzie - 12/27/2010 at 11:05 PM

quote:
From what was written, I gather the point is being made that attraction to someone of the same sex might be instinct but the decision to be with someone of the same sex is choice.....just like a guy might get aroused by a woman who isn't his wife but acting on it is choice?


Yes!

quote:
That being the case, it still equates to the belief that gays don't have the right to act upon their attraction but straight people do and I find faullt with that thought process.


I'm not taling about rights, or right and wrong, I'm talking about evidence that a genetic predispostion for the behavior has been found (as was stated by the previous poster). How you get from that to the idea that I don't believe gays have a right to act on their attraction I'll never know.


bigann - 12/27/2010 at 11:38 PM

I wasn't necessarily directing my comments to you, however, if that's not the ultimate determination about homosexuality, why go down the road to try to prove that gays are that way by choice not birth?


DougMacKenzie - 12/27/2010 at 11:48 PM

quote:
I wasn't necessarily directing my comments to you, however, if that's not the ultimate determination about homosexuality, why go down the road to try to prove that gays are that way by choice not birth?

First, scientific knowledge about ourselves and the world around us is good. I'm interested in the science of it. I'm also fascinated by the seeming need for so many that there be no choice involved in the behavior, specifically homosexual behavior. Would it be just as okay for someone to be born with a predispostion to be attracted to members of the same sex but chose not to act on it, or to engage in heterosexual relationships?
Secondly, I didn't even get involved in this aspect of the discussion until someone stated as fact that a genetic link to the behavior had been found. I don't believe it has and asked for supporting evidence. How does that turn into trying to prove something one way or the other?


bigann - 12/27/2010 at 11:52 PM

Would it be just as okay for someone to be born with a predispostion to be attracted to members of the same sex but chose not to act on it, or to engage in heterosexual relationships?

Happens all the time. I support gay marriage because I know of several couples who married while one of them was still in the closet and it didn't have a chance. If gays could marry then there wouldn't be any reason to use a straight person to mask their sexuality causing pain to everyone involved.


Bhawk - 12/28/2010 at 12:51 AM

quote:
First, scientific knowledge about ourselves and the world around us is good. I'm interested in the science of it. I'm also fascinated by the seeming need for so many that there be no choice involved in the behavior, specifically homosexual behavior. Would it be just as okay for someone to be born with a predispostion to be attracted to members of the same sex but chose not to act on it, or to engage in heterosexual relationships?


"Seeming need?"

I don't believe we have a "choice" over who we are attracted to. To me it seems like you are going the long way to say that homosexuality is wrong because there is no scientific proof to justify such a "lifestyle choice" and that even though you may be attracted to a member of the same sex, "acting on it by choice" is wrong because it fits a specific personal or religious theorem. I, personally think that's wrong and judgmental in and of itself, but I could be way off base, however.


DougMacKenzie - 12/28/2010 at 01:19 AM

quote:
quote:
First, scientific knowledge about ourselves and the world around us is good. I'm interested in the science of it. I'm also fascinated by the seeming need for so many that there be no choice involved in the behavior, specifically homosexual behavior. Would it be just as okay for someone to be born with a predispostion to be attracted to members of the same sex but chose not to act on it, or to engage in heterosexual relationships?


"Seeming need?"

I don't believe we have a "choice" over who we are attracted to. To me it seems like you are going the long way to say that homosexuality is wrong because there is no scientific proof to justify such a "lifestyle choice" and that even though you may be attracted to a member of the same sex, "acting on it by choice" is wrong because it fits a specific personal or religious theorem. I, personally think that's wrong and judgmental in and of itself, but I could be way off base, however.

The "seeming need" I'm talking about is for those defending homosexuality that it not be a choice. I just find that fascinating. Why should it matter so much that it not be a choice? Again, I've said absolutely nothing about the "right or wrong" of homosexuality in any of these threads, or about "justifying" any choices one might make. I find the conclusion you and others have come to about my motivations fascinating as well. The line of thinking seems to belong to you and others that if it is a choice, and people choose it, it is wrong. I've never said or implied that, only that all human behavior, including all sexual behavior, is a choice. The rest is you.


SquatchTexas - 12/28/2010 at 01:27 AM

quote:
We recently had a long discussion that included this idea here in the WP. As of yet, as far as any of us were able to determine, there has been no gene isolated that determines a predispostion for sexual preference. Could you post a link to the information you have stating otherwise?
Also, could you site some sources that explain scientifically human behavior is not a choice?


US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetic s.and.environmental.factors

How homosexuality is 'inherited' Scientists say they have shown how male homosexuality could be passed from generation to generation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm


bigann - 12/28/2010 at 01:29 AM

Sometimes, Doug, it really isn't all about you. Seriously, my comments were in general to reflect previous conversations with other posters and their opinions.


DougMacKenzie - 12/28/2010 at 01:42 AM

quote:
quote:
We recently had a long discussion that included this idea here in the WP. As of yet, as far as any of us were able to determine, there has been no gene isolated that determines a predispostion for sexual preference. Could you post a link to the information you have stating otherwise?
Also, could you site some sources that explain scientifically human behavior is not a choice?


US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetic s.and.environmental.factors

How homosexuality is 'inherited' Scientists say they have shown how male homosexuality could be passed from generation to generation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm

From the gaurdian:
While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.

A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause

And the other articles make the same basic premise. This is exactly what I was saying.


DougMacKenzie - 12/28/2010 at 01:43 AM

quote:
Sometimes, Doug, it really isn't all about you. Seriously, my comments were in general to reflect previous conversations with other posters and their opinions.


Understood.


Bhawk - 12/28/2010 at 02:47 AM

quote:
The "seeming need" I'm talking about is for those defending homosexuality that it not be a choice. I just find that fascinating. Why should it matter so much that it not be a choice? Again, I've said absolutely nothing about the "right or wrong" of homosexuality in any of these threads, or about "justifying" any choices one might make.


Hmmm. You seem, to me, to contridict yourself there. I find equally as fascinating your use of the words "defending homosexuality." Usually when someone uses the word "defend" they are using in somewhat of an angered context showing disgust that someone would "defend" something. What is it that you find so fascinating?

Turned around the other way, why is it so important that it is a choice to those who abhor homosexuality? To those who try to have people's homosexuality "deprogrammed?" To them, it is a 100% choice and they have judged that choice to be wrong, do they not?


DougMacKenzie - 12/28/2010 at 03:28 AM

quote:
quote:
The "seeming need" I'm talking about is for those defending homosexuality that it not be a choice. I just find that fascinating. Why should it matter so much that it not be a choice? Again, I've said absolutely nothing about the "right or wrong" of homosexuality in any of these threads, or about "justifying" any choices one might make.


Hmmm. You seem, to me, to contridict yourself there. I find equally as fascinating your use of the words "defending homosexuality." Usually when someone uses the word "defend" they are using in somewhat of an angered context showing disgust that someone would "defend" something. What is it that you find so fascinating?

Turned around the other way, why is it so important that it is a choice to those who abhor homosexuality? To those who try to have people's homosexuality "deprogrammed?" To them, it is a 100% choice and they have judged that choice to be wrong, do they not?

I really didn't know how else to state that; "approve" of homosexuality seems loaded, but I guess any way you state it could be taken that way. It is the insistence that there be no choice in the matter that I find fascinating, that the possibility of choice somehow equates to "wrong". I think it is equally fascinating that some could deny the distinct possibility of a genetic predispostion, as if that would somehow negate the issue of choice. I fully believe that at some point a true genetic link to predispostion will be found, but I also fully understand the act, or behavior, is a choice, as is all human behavior. If someone chooses that behavior that is their business, not mine. The emotional loading on both sides of the issue, and the conclusions about others that people draw are, well, fascinating to me. I'm not angry at homosexuals or disgusted by the behavior, but you have apparently drawn such a conclusion. I've been labeled a rascist, a bigot, someone who equates homosexual behavior on a par with rape and pedophilia, and someone who wants all homosexuals locked up or wiped off the face of the planet because I point out that the behavior is a choice, as do the articles ST posted. None of these things are true about me or what I believe. That is what I find so fascinating. I get accused of all sorts of liberal leanings here in Texas (the horror!) because I point out there is most likely a genetic predispostion to be attracted to partners of the same sex in those engaging in homosexual behavior. Fascinating.


Bhawk - 12/28/2010 at 03:06 PM

quote:
I've been labeled a rascist, a bigot, someone who equates homosexual behavior on a par with rape and pedophilia, and someone who wants all homosexuals locked up or wiped off the face of the planet because I point out that the behavior is a choice, as do the articles ST posted. None of these things are true about me or what I believe.


I don't think you are any of those things, Doug. Worst thing I can call you is a Cowboy fan.

I think we have been talking about two different things and I also think we actually agree on more here than we disagree.


DougMacKenzie - 12/28/2010 at 03:10 PM

quote:
quote:
I've been labeled a rascist, a bigot, someone who equates homosexual behavior on a par with rape and pedophilia, and someone who wants all homosexuals locked up or wiped off the face of the planet because I point out that the behavior is a choice, as do the articles ST posted. None of these things are true about me or what I believe.


I don't think you are any of those things, Doug. Worst thing I can call you is a Cowboy fan.

I think we have been talking about two different things and I also think we actually agree on more here than we disagree.


I agree.
And congrats to the Chiefs. Bastids.


piacere - 12/28/2010 at 04:19 PM

can you both agree on the glory and mightiness of the beloved Patriots?


DougMacKenzie - 12/28/2010 at 05:14 PM

No.


Bhawk - 12/28/2010 at 06:01 PM

Did someone say something?


DougMacKenzie - 12/29/2010 at 01:01 AM

No.


bigann - 12/29/2010 at 01:13 AM

Ahhhh...the sound of silence.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=112613