DADT Passsed

[redshift1]

Take a look at the comments section.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/senate-faces-historic-vote-military-gay-ban/

[Mike at A+]

Will all "friendly fire" deaths of gays now be investigated as hate crimes?

[newtothegame]

Personally, I never had a problem serving with someone who was of a different sexual persuasion them myself. But, I never needed to make it a point to tell or "wear" on my sleeve what my preferrence was.
I do NOT think that anyone of a difference should be banned.
I also believe there is a reason that you are stripped of your "individualism" during boot camp. This is so there was a unity. A "band of brothers" if you will.
The idea is we all think alike, act alike, and perform alike.
I see this as a threat to that idea!

[Warren Henry]

Personally, I never had a problem serving with someone who was of a different sexual persuasion them myself. But, I never needed to make it a point to tell or "wear" on my sleeve what my preferrence was.
I do NOT think that anyone of a difference should be banned.
I also believe there is a reason that you are stripped of your "individualism" during boot camp. This is so there was a unity. A "band of brothers" if you will.
The idea is we all think alike, act alike, and perform alike.
I see this as a threat to that idea!


Since we are all alike, it would be fair to have service men and women all share the same shower and bunk in the same room. And, no one would find that even a little bit uncomfortable?

[NJ Stinks]

Take a look at the comments section.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/17/senate-faces-historic-vote-military-gay-ban/

I wish I hadn't.

Anyway, as Craig Ferguson likes to say - "it's a great day for America!" :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I wish I hadn't.

...

You and me both.

[newtothegame]

Since we are all alike, it would be fair to have service men and women all share the same shower and bunk in the same room. And, no one would find that even a little bit uncomfortable?
Warren, just a question...based on your comment of my post, I hope you didnt interpret me as saying "we are all alike"....

[Warren Henry]

Warren, just a question...based on your comment of my post, I hope you didnt interpret me as saying "we are all alike"....
It was my intent to say that if you put straight men and women and gay men and women all together in one pot you will not have us all acting, thinking, etc alike.

In my civilian life, I can choose who I sleep/shower with. I have no problem with associations with gays or women in this context. I am free to do as I choose, and they may do the same.

However, in my military life if you had had me bunking with women or gays and if I had noticed either one of those looking at my pee pee, there would have been a serious problem. The nature of the problem could have been different depending on who was doing the looking, but it wouldn't have been good for morale and/or morals regardless.

[newtothegame]

It was my intent to say that if you put straight men and women and gay men and women all together in one pot you will not have us all acting, thinking, etc alike.

In my civilian life, I can choose who I sleep/shower with. I have no problem with associations with gays or women in this context. I am free to do as I choose, and they may do the same.

However, in my military life if you had had me bunking with women or gays and if I had noticed either one of those looking at my pee pee, there would have been a serious problem. The nature of the problem could have been different depending on who was doing the looking, but it wouldn't have been good for morale and/or morals regardless.
Yes sir...I agree....that why I mentioned I see it as a threat!

[jballscalls]

It was my intent to say that if you put straight men and women and gay men and women all together in one pot you will not have us all acting, thinking, etc alike.

In my civilian life, I can choose who I sleep/shower with. I have no problem with associations with gays or women in this context. I am free to do as I choose, and they may do the same.

However, in my military life if you had had me bunking with women or gays and if I had noticed either one of those looking at my pee pee, there would have been a serious problem. The nature of the problem could have been different depending on who was doing the looking, but it wouldn't have been good for morale and/or morals regardless.

This is one of my favorite 'gay fears' straight guys have this illusion that gay guys are looking at their dicks while they pee or shower. note to 95% of straight guys, we aren't that attractive!!

Gay guys just dont go around hitting on straight guys and grabbing at their johnson's! it's not like Shawshank redemption for gosh sakes.

[Warren Henry]

Yes sir...I agree....that why I mentioned I see it as a threat!


OOPS, I misunderstood your last line. So, it seems we are in agreement. Good for us :)

[newtothegame]

OOPS, I misunderstood your last line. So, it seems we are in agreement. Good for us :)
No Problem.....;)
But yes sir...we are in agreement!

[newtothegame]

This is one of my favorite 'gay fears' straight guys have this illusion that gay guys are looking at their dicks while they pee or shower. note to 95% of straight guys, we aren't that attractive!!

Gay guys just dont go around hitting on straight guys and grabbing at their johnson's! it's not like Shawshank redemption for gosh sakes.
Jason....maybe it is a phobia....but a real phobia for alot of young men none the less.
The point I was making, and I believe warren would agree, is that those are distractions that are NOT necessarily needed when you are worrying about performing a mission or task at hand. That is also in essence what the marina corps commendant also said.
I also said I have no problem with alternative lifestyles.
I have no problem with them being accepted in the military.....
But do we really need to have people wearing their lifestyle as a badge of honor, when its almost imperative for the military to strip you of your individualism so that they can create ONE fighting unit?
As I said, I never felt a need to wear my sexual preferrence on my sleeve, nor did I find it necessary to tell anyone about my heterosexual preferrence.
I believe this will cause more problems.....Now, it opens the door for the military to ask.
Why even have it necessary to ask? Are there gonna be units solely made up of alternative lifestyles?
Warren brings up a valid point, will there be "share" type restrooms installed so that the alternative lifestyles feel like they are being given equal opportunities?
Lets face it, the military (like it or not) is not set up for that lifestyle as a whole. There will have to be major changes and training put in place.
War time is not the right time in my opinion to try and implement those things.

[cj]

As someone that did 23+ years in the military, I say it is about time. I could not care less if someone I worked with was gay or not. Do people really think when they shower at the gym there are never gays in there at the same time? Who cares? If a person works hard and does a good job, we need them.

[Warren Henry]

This is one of my favorite 'gay fears' straight guys have this illusion that gay guys are looking at their dicks while they pee or shower. note to 95% of straight guys, we aren't that attractive!!
That has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is the thought whether rational or irrational. The fact that I wouldn't have found any of the Women Marines I served with attractive doesn't mean that it would have been a good idea for us to have bunked or showered together.

DADT made it possible for gays to serve if they wanted as long as their preferences stayed private. That seemed a good compromise to me - not perfect, but better than an outright ban.

I could have served with gay Marines. I could also have served with child molesters, bigots, crooks, etc. However, I believe that the unit cohesiveness was better by not knowing of these things.

[jballscalls]

Jason....maybe it is a phobia....but a real phobia for alot of young men none the less.
The point I was making, and I believe warren would agree, is that those are distractions that are NOT necessarily needed when you are worrying about performing a mission or task at hand. That is also in essence what the marina corps commendant also said.
I also said I have no problem with alternative lifestyles.
I have no problem with them being accepted in the military.....
But do we really need to have people wearing their lifestyle as a badge of honor, when its almost imperative for the military to strip you of your individualism so that they can create ONE fighting unit?
As I said, I never felt a need to wear my sexual preferrence on my sleeve, nor did I find it necessary to tell anyone about my heterosexual preferrence.
I believe this will cause more problems.....Now, it opens the door for the military to ask.
Why even have it necessary to ask? Are there gonna be units solely made up of alternative lifestyles?
Warren brings up a valid point, will there be "share" type restrooms installed so that the alternative lifestyles feel like they are being given equal opportunities?
Lets face it, the military (like it or not) is not set up for that lifestyle as a whole. There will have to be major changes and training put in place.
War time is not the right time in my opinion to try and implement those things.

i think you've made a great post. I've never been in the field of battle and probably never will be, so granted my comments are strictly from an outsider perspective.

I know from friends who are in and have been in the service, there is much time spent not in battle, but rather, simply in and amongst each other's company. it's times like this, when banter will be had, and people's personal lives are going to come up.

I know so often they show military guys getting to send well wishes to their wives and kids at home via video during football games etc, i dont see whats wrong with a guy sending well wishes to his boyfriend in a situation like this?

there is a big part of me who thinks that the military and it's members should be the ones who vote on this, since it involves them the most.

i just know personally, someones sexual preference doesn't effect me. i've worked with a number of homosexuals, i'm related to a few of them and it's just never been in issue.

was/is there a lack of morale when minorities began serving?? i mean that is another difference in a person that is not chosen, but something they are born with, clearly racism exists as prevelently as homophobia, so should we not have blacks in battle?

[bigmack]

This is as good of a time as any so here goes...

Tom, I love you man.

[Warren Henry]

OK, I have some questions which may risk, but are not intended to, take this off topic.

Is it the mission of the military to treat everyone "fairly"?

Does the military still discriminate against folks who are taller than a certain height or shorter than a certain height. How about people who are above certain weight standards. How about certain physical limitations.

If they still do this, is it justified.

IMO (notice no H :) ), this country is being destroyed by a minority of people who are insisting on "fairness" rather than "good sense".

[lsbets]

As someone that did 23+ years in the military, I say it is about time. I could not care less if someone I worked with was gay or not. Do people really think when they shower at the gym there are never gays in there at the same time? Who cares? If a person works hard and does a good job, we need them.

Exactly right. Its about time they got rid of the stupid policy. Who the hell cares if someone is gay? When we had a gay guy in the unit, everyone knew, and no one cared. The fact is, it simply doesn't matter to most people anymore.

[cj]

Exactly right. Its about time they got rid of the stupid policy. Who the hell cares if someone is gay? When we had a gay guy in the unit, everyone knew, and no one cared. The fact is, it simply doesn't matter to most people anymore.

Exactly. Everybody knows, and very few care. Those that do care probably have other issues as well.

[PaceAdvantage]

Never been in the military, but I'm glad guys who think like lsbets and cj were/are...

I'm glad to see this policy put out to pasture.

[boxcar]

Never been in the military, but I'm glad guys who think like lsbets and cj were/are...

I'm glad to see this policy put out to pasture.

Why?

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Why?

BoxcarBecause by all accounts that I am aware of, it's a non factor.

And if it's good enough for guys like lsbets and cj, who have actually served, then it's good enough for me...

[boxcar]

Because by all accounts that I am aware of, it's a non factor.

And if it's good enough for guys like lsbets and cj, who have actually served, then it's good enough for me...

So, how did the DADT policy make it a factor?

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

Because by all accounts that I am aware of, it's a non factor.

And if it's good enough for guys like lsbets and cj, who have actually served, then it's good enough for me...

But for guys like the Marine Corps Commandant, who say's now is not the right time....????

[newtothegame]

So, how did the DADT policy make it a factor?

Boxcar

That's it in a nutshell Box......its only a factor due to politics.
LS has already said when "they had a guy who they knew..."...
So alternative lifestyles have ALWAYS been there.....
The military always knew they were there....
So as I asked before.....why now, in time of war, do the politicians see a need to change the policy????

[Warren Henry]

This is a political problem. If someone in a unit takes the stance "I am here, I am queer, and I am in your face", the unit commander will have his/her hands tied by the PC police. Whereas, that same unit commander could handle most other HR problems without there being any fanfare.

[newtothegame]

This is a political problem. If someone in a unit takes the stance "I am here, I am queer, and I am in your face", the unit commander will have his/her hands tied by the PC police. Whereas, that same unit commander could handle most other HR problems without there being any fanfare.
Absolutely correct warren.......
And it will be a Budget problem as well. Not many are looking at that but there will be ALOT of training revisions....upgrade to barracks....facilities...etc etc....

[ArlJim78]

by all accounts DADT worked. the guys here have attested to that. one thing for sure is that when DADT is repealed and the ban removed, things will not be the same anymore. it remains to be seen whether this is a good idea that enhances our military in any way. i have my doubts.

[Tom]

This is as good of a time as any so here goes...

Tom, I love you man.

At ease!

[boxcar]

This is a political problem. If someone in a unit takes the stance "I am here, I am queer, and I am in your face", the unit commander will have his/her hands tied by the PC police. Whereas, that same unit commander could handle most other HR problems without there being any fanfare.

You mean...kinda like that Muslim army officer at Fort Hood? Those deaths could have been prevented if everyone hadn't been fearful of violating the rules of PC with respect to Muslim terrorists, right?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

That's it in a nutshell Box......its only a factor due to politics.
LS has already said when "they had a guy who they knew..."...
So alternative lifestyles have ALWAYS been there.....
The military always knew they were there....
So as I asked before.....why now, in time of war, do the politicians see a need to change the policy????

BINGO! You got it exactly right. But merely being there and others knowing about those "alternative lifestyles" wasn't good enough for some people. The militant, in-your-face types, though, were not satisfied with the decency of discretion, and had to make this a front burner issue, instead. They had to make their lifestyles a factor -- infinitely more so than it was under DADT. So, the divide- and-conquer politicians will now have two cards to play from their Joker-filled deck -- the race card and the gay card. And life will never be quite the same in the military.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Exactly right. Its about time they got rid of the stupid policy. Who the hell cares if someone is gay? When we had a gay guy in the unit, everyone knew, and no one cared. The fact is, it simply doesn't matter to most people anymore.

That's the way it was when I was in. I know of at least two guys I served with that were gay, and another woman. Everybody knew and everybody basically ignored it.

[PaceAdvantage]

by all accounts DADT worked. the guys here have attested to that. one thing for sure is that when DADT is repealed and the ban removed, things will not be the same anymore. it remains to be seen whether this is a good idea that enhances our military in any way. i have my doubts.So you really think this is all going to change things? Gay guys are going to be showing up for duty dressed like Maxwell Klinger?

Nothing is going to change with DADT repealed. The same gay men and women are going to be in the military in the same exact way that they were yesterday when DADT was in force.

[cj]

So, how did the DADT policy make it a factor?

Boxcar
It is a factor among people trying to make it an issue. Most people don't care, in or out of the military.

[cj]

But for guys like the Marine Corps Commandant, who say's now is not the right time....????

When do you think that guy last showered in a group or shared a room with someone?

[plainolebill]

I agree - it's not a problem.

[newtothegame]

So you really think this is all going to change things? Gay guys are going to be showing up for duty dressed like Maxwell Klinger?

Nothing is going to change with DADT repealed. The same gay men and women are going to be in the military in the same exact way that they were yesterday when DADT was in force.

Ohh come on Mike...thats a little melo dramatic wouldnt ya say??
But, you can't change the fact that once you open pandoras door, there is no closing it.
They have always been a part....explain to me why the need for them to be "OPEN"? What is the purpose of being openly gay in the military???

[newtothegame]

I agree - it's not a problem.
If its not a problem...and nothings going to change...then why pass it????

[bigmack]

It's just silly for those in favor of its repeal to talk about shower activity. It's not about homophobia, it's a professional organization. While a good thing that someone can't be booted for being gay, as there have always been gay soldiers - That goes without saying. That's not the issue. :bang:

Isn't this opening up a can of worms for any soldier to say, "I'm gay and you can't do anything about it" :confused:

Next week look for a bill to allow those who spark on fetishism. We need to be understanding of the sexual preferences/habits of others. :rolleyes:

Then again, how 'bout you just be a soldier and leave that nonsense to yourself?

[Johnny V]

I was in a unit that we had two gay guys that we knew of. No one openly discriminated against them. One of them was in a combat capacity and he was a corpsman. No one really seemed to mind at the time as I recall. We all had a job to do and when someone is trying to save your life the last thing you care about is his sexual orientation at that time.
That was my experience. However, having an openly gay corpsman or medic I could see where it might potentially cause some problems for some military members because they have to touch and examine you aboard ship and in clinics in the course of their medical duties. But they are there now performing their duties.
The military is a reflection of society as a whole. The military goes through the same problems and changes. They went through the racial integration process, dealing with drug abuse in the 60's and 70's, and allowing women in combat roles and aboard ships. All were controversial at the time.

[GameTheory]

One thing no one talks about is that you are not always on duty, and you are not always deployed, and you are not always in a combat role. Some in the military people have desk jobs, work as teachers and scientists and engineers, etc. If you are allowed to be "open", gay people can now have open gay relationships and lead normal lives. I see all that as a plus. There won't be instant acceptance overnight and across the board, but this is hardly comparable to something like desegregating schools in the South where a majority of the whites were virulently opposed. Stronger and more violent attitudes would have been the case here a few decades ago, but I think they've waited long enough that it shouldn't be THAT big a deal. (Although as soon as someone does get beat up or something, there will be a media field day.)

[boxcar]

It is a factor among people trying to make it an issue. Most people don't care, in or out of the military.

Right. And in the name of advancing "civil rights" for gays, these people insisted on fixing something that wasn't broken! Isn't that right, CJ? The central purpose behind DADT policy was to make it as much as a non-issue -- a non-factor as humanly possible!. When you joined whatever branch of service you were in, CJ, did you make it a point to advertise your sexual preferences?

Boxcar

[cj]

Right. And in the name of advancing "civil rights" for gays, these people insisted on fixing something that wasn't broken! Isn't that right, CJ? The central purpose behind DADT policy was to make it as much as a non-issue -- a non-factor as humanly possible!. When you joined whatever branch of service you were in, CJ, did you make it a point to advertise your sexual preferences?

Boxcar

Again, nobody cared, and they won't care now. Don't ask, don't tell was a non issue because almost everyone knows anyway. Maybe now the military can draw more qualified members, and trust me, we need them. Don't ask, don't tell almost certainly kept some away, and also had very good members driven out. So, it is a change, right?

If the repeal were put to a vote among military members, it would pass by at least 3 to 1, probably much more.

[Warren Henry]

If the repeal were put to a vote among military members, it would pass by at least 3 to 1, probably much more.

I don't think that would have been the case "back in my time". However, if true today, my only problem is that it should have been something done by the military rather than having been dictated by the politicians.

[boxcar]

Again, nobody cared, and they won't care now. Don't ask, don't tell was a non issue because almost everyone knows anyway. Maybe now the military can draw more qualified members, and trust me, we need them. Don't ask, don't tell almost certainly kept some away, and also had very good members driven out. So, it is a change, right?

If the repeal were put to a vote among military members, it would pass by at least 3 to 1, probably much more.

You're contradicting yourself, CJ. You said earlier that it was a factor for those making it an issue! But now you're saying, "no one cared"!? Well, obviously someone did care because "someone" made it an issue. Someone made it a factor! Who was the "someone", CJ? And why did this "someone" care enough to make it an issue/

Boxcar

[cj]

I don't think that would have been the case "back in my time". However, if true today, my only problem is that it should have been something done by the military rather than having been dictated by the politicians.

The President is CIC, no?

[cj]

You're contradicting yourself, CJ. You said earlier that it was a factor for those making it an issue! But now you're saying, "no one cared"!? Well, obviously someone did care because "someone" made it an issue. Someone made it a factor! Who was the "someone", CJ? And why did this "someone" care enough to make it an issue/

Boxcar

I don't know, and I don't care. I just think we are better off with it repealed. Ever served?

[Dahoss9698]

You're contradicting yourself, CJ. You said earlier that it was a factor for those making it an issue! But now you're saying, "no one cared"!? Well, obviously someone did care because "someone" made it an issue. Someone made it a factor! Who was the "someone", CJ? And why did this "someone" care enough to make it an issue/

Boxcar

It's a sign of the times. Your way of blind hate based on a book is becoming less tolerable and accepting others as they are is becoming more tolerable. Scary, isn't it? The idea that people shouldn't be judged based on their sexual preference. Common sense is bound to prevail and you might as well accept it.

[boxcar]

It's a sign of the times. Your way of blind hate based on a book is becoming less tolerable and accepting others as they are is becoming more tolerable. Scary, isn't it? The idea that people shouldn't be judged based on their sexual preference. Common sense is bound to prevail and you might as well accept it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes: Your hate for the Book and for those who believe its teachings is a definite sign of your intolerance. The only thing scary is your hypocrisy -- but you're too blind to see that, aren't you?

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes: Your hate for the Book and for those who believe its teachings is a definite sign of your intolerance. The only thing scary is your hypocrisy -- but you're too blind to see that, aren't you?

Boxcar

i agree with you here, hypocrisy is on all fronts. people like you are intolerant of others beliefs and their rejection of the book, while we that don't believe in it's teachings belittle you and say you believe in the tooth ferry.

intolerance is everywhere

[Dahoss9698]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes: Your hate for the Book and for those who believe its teachings is a definite sign of your intolerance. The only thing scary is your hypocrisy -- but you're too blind to see that, aren't you?

Boxcar

I don't hate the book or those who believe its "teachings". I just have a problem with those that use it as a crutch to be intolerable and hate filled. Which is really the complete opposite of what the "teachings" are designed to do.

Keep fighting that fight.

[boxcar]

I don't know, and I don't care. I just think we are better off with it repealed. Ever served?

You don't know and you don't care? I would have expected a more intelligent, thoughtful answer coming from you. But yet you can glibly tell me that you "think" we're better off with DADT repealed, but you haven't really stated why. You see, I believe just the opposite. And believe me: I can tell you why!

And now you're going to insult my intelligence by tossing me a red herring? Whether or not I ever served is irrelevant to this discussion. You know why? Because whether I not I served in the military doesn't form the base to my core values. Whether or not I served for any period of time would not contribute significantly to my overall Christian world view. Unlike many people on this forum, I don't suffer from mental myopia by allowing just my personal life experiences to be the sole arbiter of my belief system, my world view or my core values. I do look at the bigger picture on issues. Therefore, your deflective-oriented question is bogus.

Boxcar

[cj]

You don't know and you don't care? I would have expected a more intelligent, thoughtful answer coming from you. But yet you can glibly tell me that you "think" we're better off with DADT repealed, but you haven't really stated why. You see, I believe just the opposite. And believe me: I can tell you why!

And now you're going to insult my intelligence by tossing me a red herring? Whether or not I ever served is irrelevant to this discussion. You know why? Because whether I not I served in the military doesn't form the base to my core values. Whether or not I served for any period of time would not contribute significantly to my overall Christian world view. Unlike many people on this forum, I don't suffer from mental myopia by allowing just my personal life experiences to be the sole arbiter of my belief system, my world view or my core values. I do look at the bigger picture on issues. Therefore, your deflective-oriented question is bogus.

Boxcar

I was just curious if you served, nothing more.

I did tell you why. I think more qualified gays will join the military now, and I know there won't be any gays getting kicked out merely because they are gay. I'm not sure how you missed that.

Oh, and for the record, I'm Christian...and Republican.

[ArlJim78]

the "ever served?" argument is completely bogus. it implies there is unanimity amongst servicemen on the issue when it clearly doesn't exist.

[cj]

the "ever served?" argument is completely bogus. it implies there is unanimity amongst servicemen on the issue when it clearly doesn't exist.

It wasn't an argument. I was just asking the question. However, like I said, it would be minimum 3 to 1 for repeal and probably much more. That is strong.

[boxcar]

I don't hate the book or those who believe its "teachings". I just have a problem with those that use it as a crutch to be intolerable and hate filled. Which is really the complete opposite of what the "teachings" are designed to do.

Keep fighting that fight.

You just tripped over yourself in a contradiction. But since I can see and you can't, permit me to be the Good Samaritan and help you up!

Out of one side of your mouth you tell me you neither hate the book or its believers -- but only on your terms -- only on the condition -- that those believers believe as you do, which is clearly what you have implied. You're okay with the book and its believers, as long as they tow the worldly line of thinking -- as long as they're politically correct -- because if the believers in the book don't believe as the unbelievers do, then this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt to you and your ilk that believers must be full of hate. Bottom line: your problem is that you have a problem with people who don't believe as you do! Who don't lean on your brand of "crutch" that forms your world view! You religious bigot! You're so blinded by your hate for God, for his people all that is righteous that you can't begin to sense the depth of your own hypocrisy!

And you don't have the first clue on what the bible's teaching are about and what they are designed to do. But since you have implied that you know so much about the bible, then explain this text to me:

Rom 9:10-13
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
NASB

So, wrap your own bigoted mind around God's "hate" in this passage and explain to me what this teaching is designed to do!

Boxcar

[Tom]

I think it is not as much advertising as it is having to hide it. Why should people have to hide? We is what we is. I would rather worry about the lifestyles of those they will be defending us all from.

[Dahoss9698]

Bottom line: your problem is that you have a problem with people who don't believe as you do! Who don't lean on your brand of "crutch" that forms your world view! You religious bigot! You're so blinded by your hate for God, for his people all that is righteous that you can't begin to sense the depth of your own hypocrisy!


Boxcar

Funniest and most hypoocritical post of 2010. Go take your meds.

[boxcar]

I was just curious if you served, nothing more.

I did tell you why. I think more qualified gays will join the military now, and I know there won't be any gays getting kicked out merely because they are gay. I'm not sure how you missed that.

Oh, and for the record, I'm Christian...and Republican.

As if there aren't enough qualified men and women already? :rolleyes: I probably missed it because it seems like such a non-issue answer -- a non-starter, if you will. Okay...but be that as it may, since you say you're a "Christian", where do you stand on the issue of same sex sex?

Boxcar
P.S. And for the record, I won't hold it against you that you're a card-carryin' member of the Party of Stupid. :D

[cj]

As if there aren't enough qualified men and women already? :rolleyes: I probably missed it because it seems like such a non-issue answer -- a non-starter, if you will. Okay...but be that as it may, since you say you're a "Christian", where do you stand on the issue of same sex sex?


So, I can't ask if you served, but you can ask me that? Honestly, I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms. There are far more important things to worry about. Something tells me the majority of Christian men have watched lesbian porn and didn't find it too objectionable.

You can cry about this all you like, but it is done and it will never change now. Not only that, the majority of the military will support it, even welcome it.

[GameTheory]

Ahhh...lesbian porn.

[boxcar]

I think it is not as much advertising as it is having to hide it. Why should people have to hide? We is what we is. I would rather worry about the lifestyles of those they will be defending us all from.

It is about advertising. It's about flaunting it. It's about broadcasting it from the rooftops, as it were -- all for political gain -- to gain the all-important political status of "civil rights". That's why many gays "cared". The DADT was an issue with them -- not with straights. They had to get this repealed to advance their civil rights agenda.

Gays see repeal as a civil rights milestone

"It's one step in a very long process of becoming an equal rights citizen," said Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., who served in the Army for seven years, including three combat tours, before being kicked out two years ago under the policy. He said he planned to re-enlist once the policy is abolished.

"Even though this is really huge, I look at it as a chink in a very, very long chain," he added.

Do you know how to spell INCREMENTALISM? Do you understand the ramifications to gaining PROTECTION under the banner of "civil rights" laws?

More:

Supporters declared the vote a civil rights milestone.

And then maybe someone here could take your best shot at explaining this paragraph:

"As more people realize that gay and lesbian citizens are risking their lives to defend this country, perhaps they'll be more willing to acknowledge gays and lesbians as full citizens in other ways," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101219/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military_reax

Boxcar

[boxcar]

So, I can't ask if you served, but you can ask me that?

Correct. You made it an issue. You made a self-proclamation. For some reason or another you thought that your self-profession of faith was relevant to the discussion. Therein is the difference.

Honestly, I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms. There are far more important things to worry about. Something tells me the majority of Christian men have watched lesbian porn and didn't find it too objectionable.

You can cry about this all you like, but it is done and it will never change now. Not only that, the majority of the military will support it, even welcome it.

You have a very cavalier, non-biblical attitude toward sin, in case no one ever told you previously.

Boxcar

[cj]

Correct. You made it an issue. You made a self-proclamation. For some reason or another you thought that your self-profession of faith was relevant to the discussion. Therein is the difference.



You have a very cavalier, non-biblical attitude toward sin, in case no one ever told you previously.

Boxcar

If you say so, Father. I just worry about my sins, not those of others in private.

[boxcar]

If you say so, Father. I just worry about my sins, not those of others in private.

I know where you stand and it's not consistent with scripture. End of discussion because you really don't want me to substantiate this fact, do you?

Boxcar

[cj]

I know where you stand and it's not consistent with scripture. End of discussion because you really don't want me to substantiate this fact, do you?

Boxcar

I don't care if you do or not.

[GameTheory]

I know where you stand and it's not consistent with scripture. End of discussion because you really don't want me to substantiate this fact, do you?

No. And neither does anyone else.

[Dahoss9698]

It is about advertising. It's about flaunting it. It's about broadcasting it from the rooftops, as it were -- all for political gain -- to gain the all-important political status of "civil rights". That's why many gays "cared". The DADT was an issue with them -- not with straights. They had to get this repealed to advance their civil rights agenda.

Gays see repeal as a civil rights milestone

"It's one step in a very long process of becoming an equal rights citizen," said Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., who served in the Army for seven years, including three combat tours, before being kicked out two years ago under the policy. He said he planned to re-enlist once the policy is abolished.

"Even though this is really huge, I look at it as a chink in a very, very long chain," he added.

Do you know how to spell INCREMENTALISM? Do you understand the ramifications to gaining PROTECTION under the banner of "civil rights" laws?

More:

Supporters declared the vote a civil rights milestone.

And then maybe someone here could take your best shot at explaining this paragraph:

"As more people realize that gay and lesbian citizens are risking their lives to defend this country, perhaps they'll be more willing to acknowledge gays and lesbians as full citizens in other ways," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101219/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military_reax

Boxcar

Oh my god...you mean a guy that served admirably and was kicked out because of his sexual preference is happy he is being treated like a human being? A guy that served THREE combat tours (helping to protect you and I) wants to be treated like a human being? You mean gays want to be treated fairly? How dare they.

Some nerve they have.

[boxcar]

Oh my god...you mean a guy that served admirably and was kicked out because of his sexual preference is happy he is being treated like a human being? A guy that served THREE combat tours (helping to protect you and I) wants to be treated like a human being? You mean gays want to be treated fairly? How dare they.

Some nerve they have.

You haven't been paying attention very well to what LS and CJ have been saying, sir. Both have said that the whole DADT thing has essentially been a non-issue. Homosexuals and lesbians have not, on the whole, been treated unfairly or unjustly in the military. Have there been anecdotal incidents of unfair treatment? Probably? But sinful human beings can be mean, cruel and unkind? Does this mean that everyone who gets treated badly by someone else (for whatever reason) is worthy of protection under civil rights laws? :bang: :bang: :bang:

And I'm still waiting for you to enlighten me on that Romans passage. You're not going to disappoint me, are you? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

No. And neither does anyone else.

Oh...another self-appointed spokesman. Or did 'cap lend you one of his rats?

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Oh...another self-appointed spokesman. Or did 'cap lend you one of his rats? You're right, I'm being presumptuous. So all those who wish for Boxcar to continue to prattle on please say "Aye". Hope the server can handle it...

[banacek]

I try to avoid off topic (thanks to PA's quick links :) ), but somehow I made the mistake of reading this thread. I have no idea why some people troll on discussion boards. And it is not a left or right thing..we've got plenty on both sides here. What is the point? This is a horse racing discussion board and it appears most of them have little or no interest in discussing horse racing.

Nothing wrong with some chat about sports or politics..but is some degree of respect for the fellow members not in their DNA? I have had get-togethers at my house where friends (on both sides of an issue) discuss things rationally and with respect. Often we agree to disagree..and with mutual respect.

Why the vitriol? Anyone who has played the races knows there are no certainties...one would think they would know that there are no certainties in opinion and life.

[boxcar]

You're right, I'm being presumptuous. So all those who wish for Boxcar to continue to prattle on please say "Aye". Hope the server can handle it...

Oh...not to worry. Haven't you read?:

John 3:19
"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.
NASB

You, sir, have all the forces of darkness on your side. And those that are with you far outnumber those with me; but, nonetheless, the black darkness cannot overcome the light; for Christians are the light of this entire dark, forlorn world (Mat 5:14).

So...carry on. And be of good cheer, for I do understand but more importantly forgive your presumptuousness.

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

I try to avoid off topic (thanks to PA's quick links :) ), but somehow I made the mistake of reading this thread. I have no idea why some people troll on discussion boards. And it is not a left or right thing..we've got plenty on both sides here. What is the point? This is a horse racing discussion board and it appears most of them have little or no interest in discussing horse racing.

Nothing wrong with some chat about sports or politics..but is some degree of respect for the fellow members not in their DNA? I have had get-togethers at my house where friends (on both sides of an issue) discuss things rationally and with respect. Often we agree to disagree..and with mutual respect.

Why the vitriol? Anyone who has played the races knows there are no certainties...one would think they would know that there are no certainties in opinion and life.

I share your opinion. but there is an addiction aspect to off topic. i've tried to stay away, but then Boxcar or somebody posts something that you just have to comment on!!!!

usually about every 4 months or so i try to get banned so they'll keep me away! it's like i need suicide by cop to stay out of here!

but really it's all in good fun. i mean nobody is changing their opinions based on anything posted back here, it's mostly just team right against team left.

[lsbets]

You haven't been paying attention very well to what LS and CJ have been saying, sir. Both have said that the whole DADT thing has essentially been a non-issue. Homosexuals and lesbians have not, on the whole, been treated unfairly or unjustly in the military. Have there been anecdotal incidents of unfair treatment? Probably? But sinful human beings can be mean, cruel and unkind? Does this mean that everyone who gets treated badly by someone else (for whatever reason) is worthy of protection under civil rights laws? :bang: :bang: :bang:

And I'm still waiting for you to enlighten me on that Romans passage. You're not going to disappoint me, are you? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

That's not what I said. I said there are gay people serving and almost no one cared. But, if they were to come out and say they were gay they would get booted out with a dishonorable discharge. Pretty shitty treatment for someone who would die to protect the freedom of speech and religion of those who would treat him like shit. The repeal of DADT doesn't provide any special protection or rights, it allows brave men and women with a different sexual orientation to not hide who they are while they put their lives on the line to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[boxcar]

I don't care if you do or not.

How did that Popeye verse of Tom's go:

I yam what I yam what I yam, so I yam what I yam (Popeye 4:19, I think it was)? Would that about sum up your view of scripture, or would I be over-simplifying it? :D :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

That's not what I said. I said there are gay people serving and almost no one cared. But, if they were to come out and say they were gay they would get booted out with a dishonorable discharge. Pretty shitty treatment for someone who would die to protect the freedom of speech and religion of those who would treat him like shit. The repeal of DADT doesn't provide any special protection or rights, it allows brave men and women with a different sexual orientation to not hide who they are while they put their lives on the line to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Has anyone forced any gays to enlist? If they don't like the rules of the game, why did they choose to play? If they felt the deck was stacked against them, why buy into the game?

When anyone goes to apply for almost any civilian job, applicants today are required to read and agree to policy company policies, rules and regulations. Everyone has a choice. Opt out if you don't like the rules. Very simple.

Secondly, go back and read the Yahoo link I posted earlier. The repeal of DADT is considered to be a milestone decision and the FIRST STEP in a long battle to secure the protection of all gays under civil rights laws of the U.S.. The ultimate goal of many militant homosexuals and lesbians (which I believe are not in the majority but I could be wrong) is to gain the status of Blacks under the banner of "civil rights". That carries huge implications for all society.

Boxcar

[cj]

How did that Popeye verse of Tom's go:

I yam what I yam what I yam, so I yam what I yam (Popeye 4:19, I think it was)? Would that about sum up your view of scripture, or would I be over-simplifying it? :D :D

Boxcar

I don't need to memorize scripture to know right from wrong, and to live accordingly. If you do, good on you.

[Dahoss9698]

You haven't been paying attention very well to what LS and CJ have been saying, sir. Both have said that the whole DADT thing has essentially been a non-issue. Homosexuals and lesbians have not, on the whole, been treated unfairly or unjustly in the military. Have there been anecdotal incidents of unfair treatment? Probably? But sinful human beings can be mean, cruel and unkind? Does this mean that everyone who gets treated badly by someone else (for whatever reason) is worthy of protection under civil rights laws? :bang: :bang: :bang:

And I'm still waiting for you to enlighten me on that Romans passage. You're not going to disappoint me, are you? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

The only person you disappoint is yourself. That much is obvious to anyone reading this thread.

[Dahoss9698]

Has anyone forced any gays to enlist? If they don't like the rules of the game, why did they choose to play? If they felt the deck was stacked against them, why buy into the game?

When anyone goes to apply for almost any civilian job, applicants today are required to read and agree to policy company policies, rules and regulations. Everyone has a choice. Opt out if you don't like the rules. Very simple.

Secondly, go back and read the Yahoo link I posted earlier. The repeal of DADT is considered to be a milestone decision and the FIRST STEP in a long battle to secure the protection of all gays under civil rights laws of the U.S.. The ultimate goal of many militant homosexuals and lesbians (which I believe are not in the majority but I could be wrong) is to gain the status of Blacks under the banner of "civil rights". That carries huge implications for all society.

Boxcar

How sad.

[Dahoss9698]

That's not what I said. I said there are gay people serving and almost no one cared. But, if they were to come out and say they were gay they would get booted out with a dishonorable discharge. Pretty shitty treatment for someone who would die to protect the freedom of speech and religion of those who would treat him like shit. The repeal of DADT doesn't provide any special protection or rights, it allows brave men and women with a different sexual orientation to not hide who they are while they put their lives on the line to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Excellent post.

[newtothegame]

Most every response in this thread is involving the DT (don't tell ) part....
Does everyone here also understand that by repeal, the military now has a RIGHT TO AS YOU SEXUAL PREFERRENCE?
What about that part of it......and I can assure you that they will find a way to nail your butt to a cross if they find ya lie. ( Sorry about the cross referrence BOX , just a cliche).
So now you have the government with repeal and the RIGHT TO ASK YOUR SEXUAL habits....
way to go.....:faint:

[cj]

Most every response in this thread is involving the DT (don't tell ) part....
Does everyone here also understand that by repeal, the military now has a RIGHT TO AS YOU SEXUAL PREFERRENCE?
What about that part of it......and I can assure you that they will find a way to nail your butt to a cross if they find ya lie. ( Sorry about the cross referrence BOX , just a cliche).
So now you have the government with repeal and the RIGHT TO ASK YOUR SEXUAL habits....
way to go.....:faint:

That is not part of it...wow, Stretch Armstrong type reach.

[newtothegame]

That is not part of it...wow, Stretch Armstrong type reach.

Not part of it?? Then maybe you can explain the DADT and what it represents?

If not mistaken, it was Dont Ask, Dont Tell.....
who would be doing the asking in that part?

[cj]

Not part of it?? Then maybe you can explain the DADT and what it represents?

If not mistaken, it was Dont Ask, Dont Tell.....
who would be doing the asking in that part?

It won't be asked now either. Why would it matter?

[boxcar]

The only person you disappoint is yourself. That much is obvious to anyone reading this thread.

Great exposition on that passage. Just what I'd expect from a phony who pretends he knows anything about the bible. You definitely have earned :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Yes, everyone keeps saying the "repeat" of DADT, but that's not right because that implies we are going back to the way is was before -- i.e. back to asking and banning those with the wrong answer. Which of course is not what is happening -- the new policy is going to be more like (I presume) "don't ask, tell or don't tell, it is doesn't matter".

[boxcar]

Excellent post.

Little premature in your adulation, aren't you? He hasn't even responded to my points.

Boxcar
P.S. Your "how sad" comment is transparently juvenile and adds nothing to the discussion. :ThmbDown:

[boxcar]

Yes, everyone keeps saying the "repeat" of DADT, but that's not right because that implies we are going back to the way is was before -- i.e. back to asking and banning those with the wrong answer. Which of course is not what is happening -- the new policy is going to be more like (I presume) "don't ask, tell or don't tell, it is doesn't matter".

And this may come as a HUGE surprise to you -- but this attitude, in and of itself, I have no problems with. I have nothing personal against lesbians or homosexuals. I look at them like as I do any other human being, including yours truly, as sinners in dire need of God's forgiveness. My beef about the repeal of this law is that it will pave the way for homosexuals and lesbians to seek protected status under some civil rights laws -- by their own admission in that AP article in the Yahoo link I posted earlier. They will want the same protection that is currently afforded to minorities under current civil rights laws. I object to his repeal because it's being used as a political football. Plain and simple and easy for anyone to see who has eyes to see.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

It won't be asked now either. Why would it matter?

I dont know why it would matter.....but I recently posted on this forum about the U.S government studying the GAY HABITS of members of another country. Why would we care about that either???
But, back to your question....."why would it matter?" ....
How about this for an idea.....Why would they want to control what we eat? Have you not recently seen M Obama and he new food plan for schools?
How about the recent laws passed on the east coast banning salt?
How about the laws recently passed banning sugary drinks?
Why does the government do most of the things they do??
Maybe, we as a constituency should be asking more of these questions!!!
But, I am not sure why they would want to know who is "gay" or not....they sure are interested in it by their studies!

[PaceAdvantage]

They have always been a part....explain to me why the need for them to be "OPEN"? What is the purpose of being openly gay in the military???My point is they WON'T BE any more open then they were under DADT. You heard lsbets and cj. There were gay men that they knew were gay, but nobody cared and everyone did their job.

How is it going to be any different? You really think, all of a sudden, all the gay men and women currently in the military are going to go walking around with a badge on their uniform declaring "I'M GAY!!??!!"

[PaceAdvantage]

Then again, how 'bout you just be a soldier and leave that nonsense to yourself?But isn't that they way IT IS and is going to CONTINUE TO BE? I still don't get how people think things are suddenly going to be so different now that DADT has been repealed. But then again, I never served, so I'll leave it up to those to explain to me how everything is going to change now...

[GameTheory]

And this may come as a HUGE surprise to you -- but this attitude, in and of itself, I have no problems with. I have nothing personal against lesbians or homosexuals. I look at them like as I do any other human being, including yours truly, as sinners in dire need of God's forgiveness. My beef about the repeal of this law is that it will pave the way for homosexuals and lesbians to seek protected status under some civil rights laws -- by their own admission in that AP article in the Yahoo link I posted earlier. They will want the same protection that is currently afforded to minorities under current civil rights laws. I object to his repeal because it's being used as a political football. Plain and simple and easy for anyone to see who has eyes to see.

BoxcarWhatever. The rightness or wrongness of this law has nothing to do with what people "might try to do with it" in the future, or if it is a springboard or whatever. It is either just or unjust, and it will either help or hurt the military. This ban HURTS people -- ordinary Americans. Now, *if* a tradeoff between military effectiveness, safety of the country, etc and treating gay people unfairly in this instance had to be made in the past, so be it. But if that is no longer the case -- which it is seems like because any resistance from the armed forces now is pretty weak as evidenced by the soldiers posting in this very thread -- then the ban should be lifted. So it is a tough argument to make that this policy is still absolutely necessary. (And it needs to absolutely necessary because why else would we want to treat fellow Americans badly if we didn't have a damn good reason to think it would cause us a larger jeopardy in terms of a military breakdown?) Thus the ban is lifted. What gay activists think this means for the future is irrelevant.

Another way of saying all that is that the military is necessarily a bit behind the times because it is not the place for social experiments. So they lag behind, but they don't stay in one place forever. And again, what gay activists think this means for the future is irrelevant.

[newtothegame]

My point is they WON'T BE any more open then they were under DADT. You heard lsbets and cj. There were gay men that they knew were gay, but nobody cared and everyone did their job.

How is it going to be any different? You really think, all of a sudden, all the gay men and women currently in the military are going to go walking around with a badge on their uniform declaring "I'M GAY!!??!!"

No, I don't think that Mike.......
So if NOTHING is going to change...why the CHANGE in policy????
I think you all are looking at my questions somehow against the "gay" side of this. I have mentioned several times I knew people or at least we thought, there were some who were gay. We didnt care either! All I cared about was that person willing to stand back to back with me and do his/her job as I was? That was my only concern.
So then WHY, if no one cares, and it didnt matter to those of us serving...why then repeal the law?
The government does not go through this much back and forth and fighting, spending who knows how much time and money to pass or repeal legislation without a reason.
I have asked several question of which NO ONE is answering.......
If no one cares...then why repeal it? (And because its stupid is not an answer).
I also asked that everyone is arguing the "Dont tell" part...but what about the "dont ask" part? That ALSO got repealed which (not saying they will) allows the government to now ask for your preferrence.
Previously the law was as I understand it that the military would not ask and you had no obligation to tell them. Well BOTH parts got repealed!!!
And no one sees a problem with that???

[GameTheory]

No, I don't think that Mike.......
So if NOTHING is going to change...why the CHANGE in policy????
I think you all are looking at my questions somehow against the "gay" side of this. I have mentioned several times I knew people or at least we thought, there were some who were gay. We didnt care either! All I cared about was that person willing to stand back to back with me and do his/her job as I was? That was my only concern.
So then WHY, if no one cares, and it didnt matter to those of us serving...why then repeal the law?
The government does not go through this much back and forth and fighting, spending who knows how much time and money to pass or repeal legislation without a reason.
I have asked several question of which NO ONE is answering.......
If no one cares...then why repeal it? (And because its stupid is not an answer).
I also asked that everyone is arguing the "Dont tell" part...but what about the "dont ask" part? That ALSO got repealed which (not saying they will) allows the government to now ask for your preferrence.
Previously the law was as I understand it that the military would not ask and you had no obligation to tell them. Well BOTH parts got repealed!!!
And no one sees a problem with that???It does make a big change in the lives of the soldiers or potential soldiers who are gay. Not necessarily in combat (hope not), but in general in their lives. It is pretty significant. It is not solely about what happens in the barracks or in the field.

And you are taking "repeal" too literally. It is not being repealed (going back to the way before), but replaced.

[Dahoss9698]

Great exposition on that passage. Just what I'd expect from a phony who pretends he knows anything about the bible. You definitely have earned :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Boxcar

The truth hurts sometimes. You're filled with hate and you hide behind your book because you think it excuses your juvenile thinking. It doesn't. If anyone has earned a :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: in this thread it's you and you know it.

Your way of thinking is decades old and while it might hurt to accept it, you should. Think of it as another way to be enlightened.

[newtothegame]

It does make a big change in the lives of the soldiers or potential soldiers who are gay. Not necessarily in combat (hope not), but in general in their lives. It is pretty significant. It is not solely about what happens in the barracks or in the field.

And you are taking "repeal" too literally. It is not being repealed (going back to the way before), but replaced.
We will just have to disagree here game.....
Before this repeal, gays (in their private lives) still did what they wanted to. There were alot less people who were "open" about it back when I served but there were still gays none the less.
Now you make a semi valid point about "not solely about what happens in the barracks or in the field"....but that is exactly what some fear.
I took your phrase to mean that in their personal lives, they can be free and open to be gay without threat of someone in the military seeing them and costing them their career.
But, what about NOW where if your stationed in a war zone and deployed for a year (you have no personal) life....what happens?
Will there be facilities for those who have alternative lifestyles?
If not, do you think discrimination suits are possible?
If so, where will the funding come from to build those new facilities? The budget is already a tough one!
And you say I am taking it too literal....which part is too literal, the "dont tell" part? Or the "dont ask part".....
Why is the government doing GAY studies in foriegn countries?
lol. Now you all can sit and laugh if you want...but as I said...the government (in my opinion) doesnt just do things FOR THE PEOPLE. This government has time and time again done whats in ITS OWN best interest. Now all of a sudden they are in a kind generous mood?? Nahhh...I dont buy it in the least.
What I will tell all of those wonderful people < either gay or not< becareful what you ask of your government...YOU JUST MAY GET IT!

[boxcar]

Whatever. The rightness or wrongness of this law has nothing to do with what people "might try to do with it" in the future, or if it is a springboard or whatever. It is either just or unjust, and it will either help or hurt the military. This ban HURTS people -- ordinary Americans. Now, *if* a tradeoff between military effectiveness, safety of the country, etc and treating gay people unfairly in this instance had to be made in the past, so be it. But if that is no longer the case -- which it is seems like because any resistance from the armed forces now is pretty weak as evidenced by the soldiers posting in this very thread -- then the ban should be lifted. So it is a tough argument to make that this policy is still absolutely necessary. (And it needs to absolutely necessary because why else would we want to treat fellow Americans badly if we didn't have a damn good reason to think it would cause us a larger jeopardy in terms of a military breakdown?) Thus the ban is lifted. What gay activists think this means for the future is irrelevant.

Another way of saying all that is that the military is necessarily a bit behind the times because it is not the place for social experiments. So they lag behind, but they don't stay in one place forever. And again, what gay activists think this means for the future is irrelevant.

There's no "might" about it. (You remind me of the Babylonians who didn't understand the handwriting on the wall!) The DADT policy was necessary to prevent the inevitable course that will be pursued by the more militant members of the gay community. But so be it...I never realized you were such a big fan of the Identity Politics of the Left. I suspect you'll fully support the Civil Rights Act for Homosexuals and Lesbians when the time comes. I also suspect you don't have the first clue on what they will mean when they will demand to be treated "equally". :rolleyes:

And your argument for repeal on the basis of it being an unjust law doesn't wash. Life is chock full of full of rules that we don't like. No one ever forced a straight or gay person to join the military. Gays knew the rules up front. It's not as though they were blindsided by them after the fact! Where, oh where is all this "honor" the military preaches from day one, when the gays decide in the middle of the game they don't want to play by the rules anymore? That's honorable behavior? Honorable conduct? It's suddenly honorable to not stick by the rules of the contract -- to whine and complain about the rules after one is in? I would have far more respect for any gay person who lives by his or her agreement after joining or bows out gracefully before signing on the dotted line. But that's just my ol' fuddy duddy idea of righteous behavior, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

We will just have to disagree here game.....
Before this repeal, gays (in their private lives) still did what they wanted to. There were alot less people who were "open" about it back when I served but there were still gays none the less.
Now you make a semi valid point about "not solely about what happens in the barracks or in the field"....but that is exactly what some fear.
I took your phrase to mean that in their personal lives, they can be free and open to be gay without threat of someone in the military seeing them and costing them their career.
But, what about NOW where if your stationed in a war zone and deployed for a year (you have no personal) life....what happens?
Will there be facilities for those who have alternative lifestyles?
If not, do you think discrimination suits are possible?
If so, where will the funding come from to build those new facilities? The budget is already a tough one!
And you say I am taking it too literal....which part is too literal, the "dont tell" part? Or the "dont ask part".....
Why is the government doing GAY studies in foriegn countries?
lol. Now you all can sit and laugh if you want...but as I said...the government (in my opinion) doesnt just do things FOR THE PEOPLE. This government has time and time again done whats in ITS OWN best interest. Now all of a sudden they are in a kind generous mood?? Nahhh...I dont buy it in the least.
What I will tell all of those wonderful people < either gay or not< becareful what you ask of your government...YOU JUST MAY GET IT!

Are we the only two (and Jim) who get what this is all about? This whole thing is being used by liberals as a political football so that they have more ammo to use to play their games of Identity Politics. Plain and simple. End of story. Divide and Conquer.

Boxcar

[Dahoss9698]

There's no "might" about it. (You remind me of the Babylonians who didn't understand the handwriting on the wall!) The DADT policy was necessary to prevent the inevitable course that will be pursued by the more militant members of the gay community. But so be it...I never realized you were such a big fan of the Identity Politics of the Left. I suspect you'll fully support the Civil Rights Act for Homosexuals and Lesbians when the time comes. I also suspect you don't have the first clue on what they will mean when they will demand to be treated "equally". :rolleyes:

And your argument for repeal on the basis of it being an unjust law doesn't wash. Life is chock full of full of rules that we don't like. No one ever forced a straight or gay person to join the military. Gays knew the rules up front. It's not as though they were blindsided by them after the fact! Where, oh where is all this "honor" the military preaches from day one, when the gays decide in the middle of the game they don't want to play by the rules anymore? That's honorable behavior? Honorable conduct? It's suddenly honorable to not stick by the rules of the contract -- to whine and complain about the rules after one is in? I would have far more respect for any gay person who lives by his or her agreement after joining or bows out gracefully before signing on the dotted line. But that's just my ol' fuddy duddy idea of righteous behavior, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

You're right...honorable is insulting the people that sign up to protect you. Good luck with that one.

[GameTheory]

I took your phrase to mean that in their personal lives, they can be free and open to be gay without threat of someone in the military seeing them and costing them their career.Yes, but it is much bigger than that.


But, what about NOW where if your stationed in a war zone and deployed for a year (you have no personal) life....what happens?
Will there be facilities for those who have alternative lifestyles?
If not, do you think discrimination suits are possible? Facilities for what? Like PA says, that part will pretty much be the same. What would be different?



And you say I am taking it too literal....which part is too literal, the "dont tell" part? Or the "dont ask part".....The word "repeal". The new policy has nothing to do with asking or telling. It puts sexual preference on the level of "is your hair straight or curly"? It is now a non-issue.

This government has time and time again done whats in ITS OWN best interest. Now all of a sudden they are in a kind generous mood?? Nahhh...I dont buy it in the least. What I will tell all of those wonderful people < either gay or not< becareful what you ask of your government...YOU JUST MAY GET IT!Undoubtedly the Dems think this strengthens their appeal to liberals and gay people. And it does.

Look, I am willing to defer to the military on the issue -- if it is obvious they are going to only do this kicking and screaming and it is going to cause major problems, then we shouldn't do it (yet). But they aren't kicking and screaming, not like they used to. Any change is going to cause SOME problems for a while, but whatever, as long as it doesn't compromise the military in some fundamental way then it will eventually make it stronger.

[boxcar]

You're right...honorable is insulting the people that sign up to protect you. Good luck with that one.

I hope you have better luck with this: Not all people who merely sign contracts have honorable intentions of keeping their word. So...whether they're "protecting" me or not makes not a whit of difference. I respect those who know the difference -- which you obviously don't.

Boxcar

[Dahoss9698]

I hope you have better luck with this: Not all people who merely sign contracts have honorable intentions of keeping their word. So...whether they're "protecting" me or not makes not a whit of difference. I respect those who know the difference -- which you obviously don't.

Boxcar

Keep going...you're making this way too easy.

[boxcar]

Yes, but it is much bigger than that.

Facilities for what? Like PA says, that part will pretty much be the same. What would be different?


The word "repeal". The new policy has nothing to do with asking or telling. It puts sexual preference on the level of "is your hair straight or curly"? It is now a non-issue.

Undoubtedly the Dems think this strengthens their appeal to liberals and gay people. And it does.

Look, I am willing to defer to the military on the issue -- if it is obvious they are going to only do this kicking and screaming and it is going to cause major problems, then we shouldn't do it (yet). But they aren't kicking and screaming, not like they used to. Any change is going to cause SOME problems for a while, but whatever, as long as it doesn't compromise the military in some fundamental way then it will eventually make it stronger.

I confidently predict that down the road this repeal will come back to haunt all freedom-loving Americans once the libs invent civil rights for gays. Many gays today are just as aggressive (militant) as they were back in Lot's day.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

Yes, but it is much bigger than that.

Facilities for what? Like PA says, that part will pretty much be the same. What would be different?


The word "repeal". The new policy has nothing to do with asking or telling. It puts sexual preference on the level of "is your hair straight or curly"? It is now a non-issue.

Undoubtedly the Dems think this strengthens their appeal to liberals and gay people. And it does.

Look, I am willing to defer to the military on the issue -- if it is obvious they are going to only do this kicking and screaming and it is going to cause major problems, then we shouldn't do it (yet). But they aren't kicking and screaming, not like they used to. Any change is going to cause SOME problems for a while, but whatever, as long as it doesn't compromise the military in some fundamental way then it will eventually make it stronger.

Now of course I am not saying it will or wont game...but let me give you an example....
early in this thread Cj (I believe ) pointed out that the MC Commandant hadnt been in the field or in barracks in a long time .....
Why do you think that is? And do you think its true? He may not NOW be in that position but to dismiss his opinion, I would think is a grave error.
Next, now its been about 20 plus since I have gotten out...but why are there different clubs on bases? Such as an "Officers" club...and enlisted club? etc etc?
Why were women sleeping quarters (on board ship) totally different and seperate from mens?
What happens if you have a transexual who enlist now...? Where do they sleep? Womens, mens?
These are all things that need to be looked at for THOSE peoples rights.
Will there be seperate berthings for them?
And you continue to say that the law will go to as it was before......
That's impossible....laws can't just go back in time. What I mean is its a different world now...there are people who have different SEXUAL preferrences now who do NOT wish to just Go back in time.
And I can't just let go of the questions I asked about the government...if there is NO big deal here....and nothing will change...WHY DO IT?
Why study gay habits of men outside this country (and probably in this country)???

[GameTheory]

And you continue to say that the law will go to as it was before...... I repeatedly said the opposite -- you were acting like it would go back to pre-DADT where they asked you if you were gay, and if you were, you couldn't join. We are not going back to that. You keep harping on "don't ask", but it will be rendered meaningless. You are not making sense.

And I can't just let go of the questions I asked about the government...if there is NO big deal here....and nothing will change...WHY DO IT?And I keep repeating what the changes will be, and you keep asking the same question and saying no one is answering your questions. Can't help you if you are gonna be willfully blind.

[newtothegame]

Sorry Game...I missed your comment about it not going to be as it was before....
but its not nearly as simple as "is your hair curly or straight".......
Even if it were, do you think its a fair question to ask?
And if your reply is going to be the military "wont ask now as its irrelevant"...., then I would suggest to you thats EXACTLY how it was until the repeal. The military couldnt ask and no one had an obligation to tell the military...
So we are back to square one...why change it?
Why is the government doing studies on "gay habits"...???

Next, you fail to address any of the other questions I pose...such as why different berthing areas?
What about transexuals? How do they fit into that type of sleeping arrangement?
Would the all womens barracks want a "previous man" sleeping with them? Seeing them change clothes?
Would the all mens barracks want a "current" female sleeping with them??
What about the lives of the alternatives who are stationed in a war zone for a year at a time......do you not see possible discrimination suits because they would deprived of a lifestyle if things are NOT changed to accomodate?

[GameTheory]

And if your reply is going to be the military "wont ask now as its irrelevant"...., then I would suggest to you thats EXACTLY how it was until the repeal. The military couldnt ask and no one had an obligation to tell the military...
So we are back to square one...why change it?It is not the same. They were still officially banned, and they could be kicked out for being gay. The military just wasn't allowed to find out by asking. What is NEW is that they can be openly gay, they can say, "I'm gay, I'm gay, I'm gay!" and it won't matter. They are not banned. Transitioning from banned to not banned. It's new. Really.


Why is the government doing studies on "gay habits"...???Beats me, and is only tangentially related. I don't care.

Next, you fail to address any of the other questions I pose...such as why different berthing areas?
What about transexuals? How do they fit into that type of sleeping arrangement?
Would the all womens barracks want a "previous man" sleeping with them? Seeing them change clothes?
Would the all mens barracks want a "current" female sleeping with them?? How did transexuals get into this? That's another topic.

What about the lives of the alternatives who are stationed in a war zone for a year at a time......do you not see possible discrimination suits because they would deprived of a lifestyle if things are NOT changed to accomodate?What are you talking about? Putting the transsexual question aside since that has nothing to do with this -- men are men, women are women. Some are gay, so what? I don't think the gays should be separated -- they are just another man or woman -- what special accommodations would they need? Unless the military is supplying its soldiers with sexual partners then there is no special treatment needed.

[bigmack]

However, like I said, it would be minimum 3 to 1 for repeal and probably much more. That is strong.
A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% were in favor of gays serving in the military, 37% were opposed, while 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. Of the respondents who had experience with gays in their unit, 6% said their presence had a positive impact on their personal morale, 66% said no impact, and 28% said negative impact. Likewise, regarding overall unit morale, 3% said positive impact, 64% no impact, and 27% negative impact.

In November 2010, the Defense Department published a comprehensive report on the effects of repeal. The report included the results of a survey of military personnel on bases throughout the United States and overseas, including 400,000 servicemembers and 150,000 military spouses. Overall, 70 percent of military personnel thought that integrating gays into the military would be positive, mixed, or of no consequence. However, 40 to 60 percent of personnel in the Marine Corps and combat specialties said that repealing the ban would be negative.

Since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/kickedout.png

[riskman]

Gay marriage is now legal in five states and the District of Columbia. Will gay troops and recruits seek military benefits for same-sex partners and dependents if they are married in these states. As time evolves more states will approve gay marriage and the military will have to face this issue or you can probably see discrimination suits filed. What about base housing? Will homosexuals in the military be afforded this benefit?
Also assume any discharges pending as a result of prior policy will be reviewed.
There will be probably be a lot of issues that will pop up here as a result of this new policy and I hope the military has given this serious thought.
There will surely be distractions whether they like it or not.

[Tom]

It is about advertising. It's about flaunting it. It's about broadcasting it from the rooftops, as it were -- all for political gain -- to gain the all-important political status of "civil rights". That's why many gays "cared". The DADT was an issue with them -- not with straights. They had to get this repealed to advance their civil rights agenda.


No, I do not agree at all.
You would rather people have to hide who they are with, who they date, who they marry, who they love? sound like Big Brother to me.

I thought they were making a huge sacrifice to defend our nation......yet you would deny them the very rights they might have to die for?

[Tom]

Since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT.

What happened to them all?
Did we put them in jail?
Send them to re-education camps?
GITMO?


Or just have the balif wack their Pee Pee's?

[jognlope]

If someone is going to put their life at stake for me, I won't stand on ceremony. Ouch that bullet sure hurts, downright kills ya sometimes.

[delayjf]

It won't be asked now either. Why would it matter?

If that is in fact the case then I would advise Gay soldiers that it would be best to be suspected of being gay than open your month and remove all doubt - Sorry but I couldn't resist. :D

[serp]

As someone brought up earlier in this post, I have also wondered if there is a policy here regarding personal attacks or threats of violence on other posters.

This post has been fairly tame but I've seen some posts that seem to cross some sort of line from time to time. Wonder if this is a discretionary thing here or if there are some defined lines.

Also, Boxcar is so sexy when he gets all self-righteous.

[newtothegame]

Game.....What I am trying to get you to see is that there are unintended consequences of EVERYTHING in life. Do you believe or subscribe to the theory that for every action there is an equal yet opposite action?
And I understand the difference between transgenders and gay. I also know you can be BOTH. Last time I checked, the military can NOT discriminate so my questions still remain valid.
Listen, I am with you and alot of others here in gays should be allowed to serve. You will not find anything I have typed to the contrary.
The issue I have is the government.....
You asked me earlier in the thread or should I say stated earlier in the thread that the "dont ask" part was more or less as simple as "is your hair curly or straight".
Both are QUESTIONS. Now (although its been a long time), I do not remember that specific question on my application. But as I recall, hair color was one of the questions. Point being that if something is irrelevant, as you would suggest, then why ask it??
For all of you that support the "repeal" of this law.....No one has yet to answer with any sort of logic as to WHY the government is repealing it?
Ive heard because its stupid....because it treats people unfairly...
When has the GOVERNMENT cared about FAIRNESS?
Some of you have said that the government NOW doesnt care whether or not your gay.
So why are they doing gay habit studies and spending millions to do it????
All I hear is I don't know ....
Bottom line for me is I am happy that gays can openly serve...they deserve that!
As for the " I am gay I am gay I am gay" speeches and badges.....I think there will be some who do that to make themselves feel like they have come.
Problem is I never felt a need to wear or say what my sexual preferrence was. Neither should they.
As I said before.....im my opinion.....becareful what ya ask for, you just may get it!

[GameTheory]

Game.....What I am trying to get you to see is that there are unintended consequences of EVERYTHING in life. Do you believe or subscribe to the theory that for every action there is an equal yet opposite action?Yes, there is a price to pay somewhere for every policy. Agreed. So we must agree that there is a price to pay for outright banning gays, and there is a price to pay for DADT, and there is a price to pay for gays openly serving. Etc etc. I'm not saying there won't be problems -- you've got all these questions -- what are they gonna do about this and that? I don't know -- whatever they feel will work best. If something isn't working, they'll try something else. If you are going to build a road over a mountain, you may have to tunnel through, you may have to go around a certain hill, etc. You figure it out.


And I understand the difference between transgenders and gay. I also know you can be BOTH. Last time I checked, the military can NOT discriminate so my questions still remain valid.But being gay and being transgendered don't really have anything to do with one another. They don't let you in the army if you are only 2 feet tall either (I don't think). So a 2 foot tall gay person can't now demand to be in the army just because they are letting in gays. If transgendered aren't allowed, I'm am sure that some will push for that too. But that doesn't have anything to do with being gay and not being able to say so.

Listen, I am with you and alot of others here in gays should be allowed to serve. You will not find anything I have typed to the contrary. Good.

The issue I have is the government.....It's an issue, but I don't think it is THE issue. Like Boxcar was saying about civil rights. You might not trust the gov's motives, but that is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong, or a good idea or bad one.

You asked me earlier in the thread or should I say stated earlier in the thread that the "dont ask" part was more or less as simple as "is your hair curly or straight".
Both are QUESTIONS. Now (although its been a long time), I do not remember that specific question on my application. But as I recall, hair color was one of the questions. Point being that if something is irrelevant, as you would suggest, then why ask it??Really don't know where you going here. I don't think they will ask it, as they haven't been. Before they were banned from asking it (even though relevant because gays were still banned), now the question is irrelevant because they aren't banned. I'll change my analogy, it is now more like asking, "What's your favorite color?" or "Do you prefer Italian or Mexican food?" I don't think they ask those.

For all of you that support the "repeal" of this law.....No one has yet to answer with any sort of logic as to WHY the government is repealing it? So gay people can serve and not have to pretend they aren't gay or stay mum on the issue. They are lifting the ban on gays so there won't be a ban on gays. Simple.

Ive heard because its stupid....because it treats people unfairly...
When has the GOVERNMENT cared about FAIRNESS?
Some of you have said that the government NOW doesnt care whether or not your gay.
So why are they doing gay habit studies and spending millions to do it????
All I hear is I don't know ....I don't know, I don't care. I don't think it is important. Instead of asking why over and over maybe you can tell me why it is important.

Bottom line for me is I am happy that gays can openly serve...they deserve that!Good.

As for the " I am gay I am gay I am gay" speeches and badges.....I think there will be some who do that to make themselves feel like they have come.
Problem is I never felt a need to wear or say what my sexual preferrence was. Neither should they.Whatever. No reason you need to dictate how someone else should feel.

As I said before.....im my opinion.....becareful what ya ask for, you just may get it!There will be a price to pay, yes. Problems, yes. Hopefully offset by the good that comes of it and the other problems it gets rid of.

[newtothegame]

Yes, there is a price to pay somewhere for every policy. Agreed. So we must agree that there is a price to pay for outright banning gays, and there is a price to pay for DADT, and there is a price to pay for gays openly serving. Etc etc. I'm not saying there won't be problems -- you've got all these questions -- what are they gonna do about this and that? I don't know -- whatever they feel will work best. If something isn't working, they'll try something else. If you are going to build a road over a mountain, you may have to tunnel through, you may have to go around a certain hill, etc. You figure it out.

But being gay and being transgendered don't really have anything to do with one another. They don't let you in the army if you are only 2 feet tall either (I don't think). So a 2 foot tall gay person can't now demand to be in the army just because they are letting in gays. If transgendered aren't allowed, I'm am sure that some will push for that too. But that doesn't have anything to do with being gay and not being able to say so.

Good.

It's an issue, but I don't think it is THE issue. Like Boxcar was saying about civil rights. You might not trust the gov's motives, but that is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong, or a good idea or bad one.

Really don't know where you going here. I don't think they will ask it, as they haven't been. Before they were banned from asking it (even though relevant because gays were still banned), now the question is irrelevant because they aren't banned. I'll change my analogy, it is now more like asking, "What's your favorite color?" or "Do you prefer Italian or Mexican food?" I don't think they ask those.

So gay people can serve and not have to pretend they aren't gay or stay mum on the issue. They are lifting the ban on gays so there won't be a ban on gays. Simple.

I don't know, I don't care. I don't think it is important. Instead of asking why over and over maybe you can tell me why it is important.

Good.

Whatever. No reason you need to dictate how someone else should feel.

There will be a price to pay, yes. Problems, yes. Hopefully offset by the good that comes of it and the other problems it gets rid of.

A few points .....you say its as SIMPLE as letting gays serve openly. I really wish I could think it was just that SIMPLE. As I have stated here before, I dont buy it. This government has a long standing history of doing what serves ITS OWN best interest. Very few times can people show where its was all ABOUT THE PEOPLE.
Call me skeptical, or whatever, but the track record for our government is not that great!

You bring up another interesting point...about the two feet people. Why arent they allowed to serve? Are they any less of a people or a person then someone who is hetero, or gay, or black, or white, or any race?
This goes to my point again about the government. If they TRULY wanted to do what was right, they would erase ALL discriminations and the only requirement would be about "american"....and not height, weight, sexual preferrence, color, specific.
And I was NOT trying to dictate how someone else should feel. After looking back, I can see how that was misconstrued and I apologize. The point was about Mike asking if I thought they would wear badges (he was being sarcastic lol) and you stating the opposite that they could in fact yell from the top of their lungs about their sexual preferrence. Well obviously, I wouldnt think one can have it both ways....
If they wish to wear badges, hell let em....make em bright pink and rainbow colors if they wish. Just make sure someone tells them that they stick out like a sore thumb in certain environments and terrains. No one wants them to be open targets !! :rolleyes:
And I am glad you now see...( as I didnt think you noticed it earlier) that there will be problems. Probably alot we havent even been to mention.

[GameTheory]

A few points .....you say its as SIMPLE as letting gays serve openly. I really wish I could think it was just that SIMPLE. As I have stated here before, I dont buy it. This government has a long standing history of doing what serves ITS OWN best interest. Very few times can people show where its was all ABOUT THE PEOPLE.
Call me skeptical, or whatever, but the track record for our government is not that great!Different people have different reasons. As I said, I'm sure the Dems think they are scoring points with their base with this, and I'm sure they are too. Whatever -- I'm not sure I can think of anything the government did with a pure motive in my lifetime, but an unpure motive doesn't mean it is a bad idea. You seem to have something more conspiratorial in mind? What do you think is "in it for the government" other than Obama gets to say he kept this one promise anyway and the Dems can continue to say they are the party of inclusion and the Repubs are homophobes and all that?

The funny thing about this battle is one would think that gay people who want to go fight and die for their country are probably the least liberal subset among the gay population. Of course some just want that college money, but I think anyone signing up these days has got to have their eyes open...

[newtothegame]

Different people have different reasons. As I said, I'm sure the Dems think they are scoring points with their base with this, and I'm sure they are too. Whatever -- I'm not sure I can think of anything the government did with a pure motive in my lifetime, but an unpure motive doesn't mean it is a bad idea. You seem to have something more conspiratorial in mind? What do you think is "in it for the government" other than Obama gets to say he kept this one promise anyway and the Dems can continue to say they are the party of inclusion and the Repubs are homophobes and all that?

The funny thing about this battle is one would think that gay people who want to go fight and die for their country are probably the least liberal subset among the gay population. Of course some just want that college money, but I think anyone signing up these days has got to have their eyes open...

I wish I had an answer game to the governments motives.....I think we both agree, the dems see it as votes.
I think thats part...but just a gut, I think its more....

[boxcar]

No, I do not agree at all.
You would rather people have to hide who they are with, who they date, who they marry, who they love? sound like Big Brother to me.

I thought they were making a huge sacrifice to defend our nation......yet you would deny them the very rights they might have to die for?

Then you need to get up to speed with the gay lobby's political agenda. And go back and read or re-read (if you did the first time) the AP story in the Yahoo link I provided. You, like so many others here, are focusing too narrowly on just the military side of this issue and are not considering the huge political ramifications to this decision. There is most definitely a militant, aggressive side to the "gay movement". So, from that political perspective....yes, the gay lobby is an in-your-face, shout-from-the-rooftops, openly belligerent and defiant group -- the same as they were back in Lot's day.

Now...as for the military side of this issue, the DADT policy was poor, politicized policy. Since the military over 20 years ago, evidently, thought there would be problems having gays serve in the military, then the proper policy would have been to ban them outright. Period. Instead, the government compromised concocting this awkward, surreal policy. Since we can't turn back the clock and change that ill-conceived policy, and since the policy for the most part was largely working for the military, then it should have been left alone. Or since gays complained too much, then change the policy to an outright ban.

Secondly, for the umpteenth time -- and the final time -- DADT was bad policy but it was the rules the gays agreed to abide by when they signed on the dotted line. No one has ever forced a gay person to enlist in the military at gunpoint, have they? So...to answer your question -- No, I would prefer that they NOT be forced to hide who or what they are. But all gays agreed to do just that when they signed up. So, the question should be: Why did they agree to hide their sexual preferences? And now, why are they complaining about the rules after the fact, since they knew before the fact what the skinny was -- what was expected of them?

Finally, a word about my concern on how all this Identity Politics is going to evolve. The minute this wicked, corrupt government of ours decided to compromise with gays on military service, by necessity the government and military were forced to treat homosexuals and lesbians UNEQUALLY -- which is really the crux of your complaint -- and mine too. But what is done is done. The horse is already out of the barn. But now...the government has undone its bad policy decision (after all, if it was such a great policy to begin with, why was it repealed!?). Moreover, the gays themselves (at least according to what I read in that AP article) are not going to satisfy themselves with just that. Their ultimate goal (always in the name of "equality", of course) will be to achieve civil rights protections under U.S. law. They will want to acquire the level of protections afforded to Blacks, for example, under current civil rights laws. But we all know how that has worked out "for" Blacks, don't we? Again, the irony in all this is that in the name of "equality", Blacks are a little more equal than the majority whites in this society, thanks to Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action permits the government to legally discriminate against Whites by giving preferential treatment to Blacks through racial quota policies, etc.. This policy puts Blacks on a higher social plane. Blacks, by sheer virtue of the the color of their skin, are special people and, therefore, deserve special (different) treatment in society, according to U.S. law. If there is one iniquity that characterizes the U.S. government above all else, hands down it would be its DUPLICITY -- its propensity for Rule by Double Standards, which I have frequently pointed out on this forum with numerous examples.

Since the above lawful discrimination precedent has long been established, there is no reason to believe that liberals won't want to eventually do the same thing for gays. Political Correctness will rule the day when the time arrives to "coronate" gays with protections under civil rights laws. Like Blacks, gays will wind up being more equal than their straight counterparts. They will get special treatment under law, which would have huge implications to society as a whole. I don't have time to lay it all out -- but suffice it to say that the groundwork for this was laid down decades ago by liberals when they removed same sex activities from the moral realm into the sphere of genetics. The official government stance on gays will state that they can no more help what they are (and do!) than Blacks can determine the color of their skin.

Boxcar

[Dahoss9698]

I don't have time to lay it all out

Boxcar

Judging by that post....I think you do.

[GameTheory]

Then you need to get up to speed with the gay lobby's political agenda. And go back and read or re-read (if you did the first time) the AP story in the Yahoo link I provided. You, like so many others here, are focusing too narrowly on just the military side of this issue and are not considering the huge political ramifications to this decision. There is most definitely a militant, aggressive side to the "gay movement". So, from that political perspective....yes, the gay lobby is an in-your-face, shout-from-the-rooftops, openly belligerent and defiant group -- the same as they were back in Lot's day.

Now...as for the military side of this issue, the DADT policy was poor, politicized policy. Since the military over 20 years ago, evidently, thought there would be problems having gays serve in the military, then the proper policy would have been to ban them outright. Period. Instead, the government compromised concocting this awkward, surreal policy. Since we can't turn back the clock and change that ill-conceived policy, and since the policy for the most part was largely working for the military, then it should have been left alone. Or since gays complained too much, then change the policy to an outright ban.

Secondly, for the umpteenth time -- and the final time -- DADT was bad policy but it was the rules the gays agreed to abide by when they signed on the dotted line. No one has ever forced a gay person to enlist in the military at gunpoint, have they? So...to answer your question -- No, I would prefer that they NOT be forced to hide who or what they are. But all gays agreed to do just that when they signed up. So, the question should be: Why did they agree to hide their sexual preferences? And now, why are they complaining about the rules after the fact, since they knew before the fact what the skinny was -- what was expected of them?

Finally, a word about my concern on how all this Identity Politics is going to evolve. The minute this wicked, corrupt government of ours decided to compromise with gays on military service, by necessity the government and military were forced to treat homosexuals and lesbians UNEQUALLY -- which is really the crux of your complaint -- and mine too. But what is done is done. The horse is already out of the barn. But now...the government has undone its bad policy decision (after all, if it was such a great policy to begin with, why was it repealed!?). Moreover, the gays themselves (at least according to what I read in that AP article) are not going to satisfy themselves with just that. Their ultimate goal (always in the name of "equality", of course) will be to achieve civil rights protections under U.S. law. They will want to acquire the level of protections afforded to Blacks, for example, under current civil rights laws. But we all know how that has worked out "for" Blacks, don't we? Again, the irony in all this is that in the name of "equality", Blacks are a little more equal than the majority whites in this society, thanks to Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action permits the government to legally discriminate against Whites by giving preferential treatment to Blacks through racial quota policies, etc.. This policy puts Blacks on a higher social plane. Blacks, by sheer virtue of the the color of their skin, are special people and, therefore, deserve special (different) treatment in society, according to U.S. law. If there is one iniquity that characterizes the U.S. government above all else, hands down it would be its DUPLICITY -- its propensity for Rule by Double Standards, which I have frequently pointed out on this forum with numerous examples.

Since the above lawful discrimination precedent has long been established, there is no reason to believe that liberals won't want to eventually do the same thing for gays. Political Correctness will rule the day when the time arrives to "coronate" gays with protections under civil rights laws. Like Blacks, gays will wind up being more equal than their straight counterparts. They will get special treatment under law, which would have huge implications to society as a whole. I don't have time to lay it all out -- but suffice it to say that the groundwork for this was laid down decades ago by liberals when they removed same sex activities from the moral realm into the sphere of genetics. The official government stance on gays will state that they can no more help what they are (and do!) than Blacks can determine the color of their skin.

I'm a sure people have that agenda, not disagreeing. But that is not a (good) reason to ban gay people from the military. You might as well say we should kill them as soon as we find out they are gay, because they otherwise they may want too many rights. Them being alive will lead to them having an agenda. Your chain of logic is screwy. You could take the logic you just expressed and determine that we should now no longer let black people sit at the front of the bus, because look how that turned out. (Are you going to call black people "uppity" next?)

Just because some future step that may or may not happen needs this present step to happen first doesn't mean that this present step is wrong or unjust. This present step must be judged on its merits alone.

There is no policy that will make everyone happy with their lot in life, or that will stop people from asking for more more more. So what? All we can do is try to be just in our own time.

[Jay Trotter]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes: Your hate for the Book and for those who believe its teachings is a definite sign of your intolerance. The only thing scary is your hypocrisy -- but you're too blind to see that, aren't you?

Boxcar

Wow, please share the name of your church! I wish to join you for Sunday services. You must be listening to the white Jeremiah Wright, eh! :lol:

Sad, really, sad!

[boxcar]

Wow, please share the name of your church! I wish to join you for Sunday services. You must be listening to the white Jeremiah Wright, eh! :lol:

Sad, really, sad!

Well, let me know when you reach the point of crock-sized tears. I'll send you a large crying towel. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

I got a better agenda the American agenda, where all are created equal and all share the same rights. Denying a group of people rights based on anything is unacceptable in a free society, no matter if we agree with their choices or not.

If someone else want to make stuff political, we deal with it politically. Not by restricting people's rights.

[newtothegame]

I got a better agenda the American agenda, where all are created equal and all share the same rights. Denying a group of people rights based on anything is unacceptable in a free society, no matter if we agree with their choices or not.

If someone else want to make stuff political, we deal with it politically. Not by restricting people's rights.

Your absolutely right TOM...problem is politics in many cases is what has restriced alot of peoples rights!

[hcap]

There is most definitely a militant, aggressive side to the "gay movement". So, from that political perspective....yes, the gay lobby is an in-your-face, shout-from-the-rooftops, openly belligerent and defiant group -- the same as they were back in Lot's day.

... Moreover, the gays themselves (at least according to what I read in that AP article) are not going to satisfy themselves with just that. Their ultimate goal (always in the name of "equality", of course) will be to achieve civil rights protections under U.S. law. They will want to acquire the level of protections afforded to Blacks, for example, under current civil rights laws. But we all know how that has worked out.

....Blacks are a little more equal than the majority whites in this society, thanks to Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action permits the government to legally discriminate against Whites by giving preferential treatment to Blacks through racial quota policies, etc.. This policy puts Blacks on a higher social plane. Blacks, by sheer virtue of the the color of their skin, are special people and, therefore, deserve special (different) treatment in society, according to U.S. law.

...Since the above lawful discrimination precedent has long been established, there is no reason to believe that liberals won't want to eventually do the same thing for gays. Political Correctness will rule the day when the time arrives to "coronate" gays with protections under civil rights laws. Like Blacks, gays will wind up being more equal than their straight counterparts. They will get special treatment under law, which would have huge implications to society as a whole.

....but suffice it to say that the groundwork for this was laid down decades ago by liberals when they removed same sex activities from the moral realm into the sphere of genetics. The official government stance on gays will state that they can no more help what they are (and do!) than Blacks can determine the color of their skin.Now you have added the Gays and Blacks to your list of evildoers.

Boxcar's boxcarian monumental study on just what is wrong with the world in a few easy to remember catch words. The menace facing all God-fearing folks. Redefined

Them gosh darn....

Commie/Socialist/lib/Community organizing Godless GAY/BLACK spawns of the devil evildoers.







BOO!

[boxcar]

I'm a sure people have that agenda, not disagreeing. But that is not a (good) reason to ban gay people from the military. You might as well say we should kill them as soon as we find out they are gay, because they otherwise they may want too many rights. Them being alive will lead to them having an agenda. Your chain of logic is screwy. You could take the logic you just expressed and determine that we should now no longer let black people sit at the front of the bus, because look how that turned out. (Are you going to call black people "uppity" next?)

Just because some future step that may or may not happen needs this present step to happen first doesn't mean that this present step is wrong or unjust. This present step must be judged on its merits alone.

Only to those addicted to Mental Myopia. How does that old wise adage go: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? This applies equally to all kinds of ills, by the way. The principle is solid and eminently reasonable, as is "Look before you leap". Do you have a grudge against Common Sense or something? Or what has Wisdom done to you to have warranted your utter disdain? :bang: :bang:

And your sophistry defies description! It's one thing to mouth the desires for your own equality but something else to actively work for the inequality of others in order to realize your goal! Let restate this in terms that you might be able to understand: It's one thing to mouth the desires for equality but it's something else to work to achieving that at the expense of others. And you talk about my logic being screwy!? :bang: :bang: (In case you're still confused, see the above paragraph for the cure. :rolleyes: )

And how in the world did you jump to killing gays? Are you saying that is what the military and government should have done 20+ years ago when they devised this screwy DADT policy?

Look, I have a lesbian couple as neighbors who live right down the street from me and moved here about four years ago. From what I know about them and from what little contact I've had with them personally, they give the appearance of being perfect neighbors. They appear to be responsible people in every way imaginable. They are personable. They are considerate. And they're even pet lovers (which is how I got to initially meet them in the first place), etc., etc. I treat them as I would any other human being. I consider them to be created EQUAL, and not more or less equal than I am. Not everyone who is walking, talking and breathing has a political agenda or sports a victimization mental disorder. I certainly don't -- unless you consider that I want less government in my life. I just want to be left alone and be free from tyranny and to live my life in peace and as free as much as possible.

Now, it's interesting that you bring up "uppity" black people because I have met my fair share of VERY UPPITY, IN-YOUR-FACE, CHIP-ON-THE-SHOULDER types in my lifetime. So...yes...because of current laws on the books, many blacks do sport BAD ATTITUDES. And in some cases, the attitudes are so bad, the black person will go out of his or her way to create problems or an incident. And why would you find this surprising? Once the government communicated to Blacks that they're entitled to special treatment, then why would not many of them sport an arrogant, entitlement-type, I'm-special attitude? Doesn't current law invite such attitudes?

Could these kinds of negative, anti-social, I'm-better-than-you attitudes been prevented? Yes! They could have! All the government had to do was write a simple law outlawing racial discrimination. But that wasn't good enough for the government. It couldn't resist in engaging in Identity Politics by taking the initial civil rights laws to the next level -- Affirmative Action.

My church is very mixed racially. In fact, we hold three services on Sunday. One for Hispanics. One for Haitians. And one for All Others (or any combination of the first two groups) in the main sanctuary. I'm here to tell you that I have not met one American-born black or Haitian who suffer from any anti-social problems. Not one. They all appear to have the same Christian attitude as everyone else in our church. Why is this? Because they haven't bought into the wicked policies of the government. They haven't bought in to the state's agenda! They haven't bought into the wickedness of Identity Politics. They don't have any "identity' problems. They know who they are in God's eyes! They don't need to be artificially propped up by any stinkin', godless government to some contrived social status.

What do my lesbian neighbors and the members of my church have in common? Very simple: Neither drape themselves in the banner that reads, "Woe is poor me, I'm a victim. Life is so unfair". But the gays, by contrast, have already announced this what their plans are. And you really think for a moment that the U.S. government, whose specialty is Identity Politics, won't accommodate them? Do we not have precedents to guide us? :bang: :bang:

There is no policy that will make everyone happy with their lot in life, or that will stop people from asking for more more more. So what? All we can do is try to be just in our own time.

Easier said than done when the government does not work toward that end. Unjust, unrighteous laws do not make for a just society. This is precisely why preventive measures, when possible, are exceedingly prudent.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

'cap, the only spawns of the devil are libs in the U.S. government and all the blind sheeple who follow them.

That ditch, to which you're being led by the ring in your nose, will come up on you when you least expect it. So, take every step as though it will be your last.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I got a better agenda the American agenda, where all are created equal and all share the same rights. Denying a group of people rights based on anything is unacceptable in a free society, no matter if we agree with their choices or not.

If someone else want to make stuff political, we deal with it politically. Not by restricting people's rights.

Question: Is serving in the military a right or a privilege?

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Let me draw you a picture and maybe you'll get it.


2ndClassCitizens ------- TreatedAsEquals ---------- SpecialPrivledgesAtTheExpenseofOthers

...........................^ gay people now

It's a continuum.

So we're talking about moving them over to the right a bit, which is where all Americans ought to be if we can manage it. You seem to think we should continue to treat them as slightly inferior lest they get too excited and go running for the far right edge.

You're advocating unfair rules now to prevent unfair rules in reverse later. Shouldn't we just aim for be being fair all the time?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Question: Is serving in the military a right or a privilege?

Boxcar

Is owning a home a right or a privilege? Correct, it's a privilege. Should we be allowed to ban certain ethnic groups from buying homes? No.

[riskman]

Just because some future step that may or may not happen needs this present step to happen first doesn't mean that this present step is wrong or unjust. This present step must be judged on its merits alone.

There is no policy that will make everyone happy with their lot in life, or that will stop people from asking for more more more. So what? All we can do is try to be just in our own time.

I agree. Banning openly gay homosexuals from serving in the military if they meet all of the physical and mental requirements was discriminatory and unfair. Gay men now serve honorably in many specialties including combat units, just not openly." It appears infantry troops in the army -48% and Marine combat units -58% that openly gay troops would undermine group cohesiveness."[NY Times 12/20/10] That is a fairly large percentage. Once they get their marching orders from command, they will have to make an attitude adjustment. This will not be plain vanilla for the Army infantry or Marine combat units.
This is just the beginning, the military will have to deal with gay marriage and military and retirement benefits to marriage partners, dependents,widow and widowers and so on just as the gay activists are challenging federal and state laws regarding same sex marriage. Full equality to the gay activists is gay marriage. That's where it all begins whether it be in private life the military, federal,city and state employment.The opening is now here, let movement begin, whether you like it or not things will never be the same.

[boxcar]

Let me draw you a picture and maybe you'll get it.


2ndClassCitizens ------- TreatedAsEquals ---------- SpecialPrivledgesAtTheExpenseofOthers

...........................^ gay people now

It's a continuum.

So we're talking about moving them over to the right a bit, which is where all Americans ought to be if we can manage it. You seem to think we should continue to treat them as slightly inferior lest they get too excited and go running for the far right edge.

You're advocating unfair rules now to prevent unfair rules in reverse later. Shouldn't we just aim for be being fair all the time?

Yes, it's a choice -- albeit poor options-- of choosing between two evils. One evil was DADT. Not good. The worse evil, however, will be the inevitable which is Civil Rights for a class of people on the basis of their sexual behavior -- which for many of us -- or perhaps for only some of us -- consider to be deviant in nature.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Is owning a home a right or a privilege? Correct, it's a privilege. Should we be allowed to ban certain ethnic groups from buying homes? No.

When did human behavior = ethnic groups? :rolleyes:

Since both are privileges, then it stands to reason that there are also legitimate reasons to be denied the procurement of either.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Question: Is serving in the military a right or a privilege? Privileged or right may not be the issue.

Is dying or sacrificing an arm or a leg for ones' country a right or a privilege? If one is prepared to uphold (in crude terms-their end of the contract) -not to be payed back for their service? Some future evil doing by your mostly imaginary bogeymen is not the point either. Tom is right. The present situation is what is before us now. You are exaggerating the slippery slope into communism. 90% of your posts do that. We can argue THAT all day long and do. This time it is not as political as you are making it.

[Jay Trotter]

Boxie, I think DADT strengthens America...

...say, the Germans try to re-organize -- well now you have a whole battalion of gay socialists at the ready to sweep into those Cabarets where all the subversive cross-dressing female impersonators are gathering to plan their next attack! I mean, if this isn't a step towards an improved Homeland Security, then what is?

You really need to look at the glass as being half full and not half empty!

:faint:

[GameTheory]

Yes, it's a choice -- albeit poor options-- of choosing between two evils. One evil was DADT. Not good. The worse evil, however, will be the inevitable which is Civil Rights for a class of people on the basis of their sexual behavior -- which for many of us -- or perhaps for only some of us -- consider to be deviant in nature.
Ok, so to you "TreatedAsEquals" is an evil.

Regarding gay marriage -- this is different. Gay people have the same rights as non-gays there already, i.e. a man can marry a woman. They don't ask you whether you are gay or not when you go to get married.

In the military, you are banned just for "being gay". Even if you've never had a gay relationship in your life but you just admit "I'm gay" then that's enough. It is not comparable to anything else I can think of. They are putting the question of gayness as if when asked, "Will you defend the United States?" you said "no" which would also disqualify you. Nobody should have separate rules just for "being gay". You can have rules for behavior, etc, but just for a state of mind which doesn't hurt anyone else?

Again, I'd be willing to keep the ban if the majority non-gay population in the armed services just couldn't handle it (yet) and it was going to compromise our military, but it seems like they are more-or-less ready. (They will never be totally ready until it is forced on them, but it seems like the 'it won't bother me's now outnumber the 'no way's.)

[jognlope]

Soldiers in a battle environment dont' have the time or energy in battle to flaunt anything, do they?

[Tom]

When did human behavior = ethnic groups? :rolleyes:

Since both are privileges, then it stands to reason that there are also legitimate reasons to be denied the procurement of either.

Boxcar

No. The RIGHT is that you do not have to hide what/who you are.
Would you favor DADT for a driver's license?

We're not talking Show and Tell here.

[delayjf]

Soldiers in a battle environment dont' have the time or energy in battle to flaunt anything, do they?

While I was in Somalia the Marines sent home 40 women for getting pregnant. Several Women Officers were busted in Saudi for running a prostitution ring. I read one report that stated that the pregnancy rate in the first Gulf war was @ 10%. The pregnancy rate got so bad that the CNO ordered pregnancy testing for all females prior to deployment - which was apposed and stopped by Sen. Boxer and Feinstein. A Navy Captain personally told me that he had to send home every female home pregnant by the end of the cruise. He also told me that the JAG Officer who gave a ship wide presentation about fraternization was later caught in a Hotel room with 6 enlisted sailors.

18 and 19 year olds have plenty of energy and time.

[GameTheory]

While I was in Somalia the Marines sent home 40 women for getting pregnant. Several Women Officers were busted in Saudi for running a prostitution ring. I read one report that stated that the pregnancy rate in the first Gulf war was @ 10%. The pregnancy rate got so bad that the CNO ordered pregnancy testing for all females prior to deployment - which was apposed and stopped by Sen. Boxer and Feinstein. A Navy Captain personally told me that he had to send home every female home pregnant by the end of the cruise. He also told me that the JAG Officer who gave a ship wide presentation about fraternization was later caught in a Hotel room with 6 enlisted sailors.

18 and 19 year olds have plenty of energy and time.Maybe we should use *only* gay soldiers -- take care of that problem....

[boxcar]

No. The RIGHT is that you do not have to hide what/who you are.
Would you favor DADT for a driver's license?

We're not talking Show and Tell here.

C'mon, Tom, you're better than that. You're comparing automobile driving with living and working within a military community? :bang: :bang:

Again, when the gays signed up for military service, THEY AGREED to suspend their right to tell or flaunt for the duration of their service! What do you and others not understand about this?

Furthermore, the suspension of basic rights is common even in the private sector. True story: A friend of mine recently lost his job with a big, publicly held company. In order to receive a sizable severance package, he had to sign away all kinds of rights for a stipulated period of time, including his right to reveal to anyone any details regarding his severance with the company or any of the circumstances regarding the reasons for they layoff. So, much for his "free speech rights" in this free society!

In both of the above scenarios, the legally binding agreement before enlistment and the legally binding agreement after termination involved a quid pro quo relationship between the parties. In the case of the gays, they agreed to suspend their right in return to procure the privilege to serve in the military. In the case of my friend, he agreed to suspend his free speech rights in order to receive his severance package privileges. This is what legal agreements are all about.

If gay men or women didn't like suspending their rights to speech (which essentially is what this amounts to), then they should have done the honorable thing and not sign up. Likewise, once they sign up, though, its equally incumbent upon them to serve in accordance with their signed agreements.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Soldiers in a battle environment dont' have the time or energy in battle to flaunt anything, do they?

What about all the free time in between all those hectic battles? Or what about those who never make it to a war zone? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

When did human behavior = ethnic groups? :rolleyes:

Since both are privileges, then it stands to reason that there are also legitimate reasons to be denied the procurement of either.

Boxcar

Your point was privileges aren't protected. I pointed out an example (buying a house) where a privilege is protected.

[GameTheory]

Again, when the gays signed up for military service, THEY AGREED to suspend their right to tell or flaunt for the duration of their service! What do you and others not understand about this?This fight isn't (primarily) about gays in the military now, but the ones that haven't joined yet. Any arguments about who agreed to what have no bearing on kids who are not even yet of age (or even born) that might want a military career someday.

You keep asking things like, "What don't people understand about X?" and you wonder why people are ignoring those points. They are ignoring them because they have nothing to do with the debate...

[boxcar]

This fight isn't (primarily) about gays in the military now, but the ones that haven't joined yet. Any arguments about who agreed to what have no bearing on kids who are not even yet of age (or even born) that might want a military career someday.

You keep asking things like, "What don't people understand about X?" and you wonder why people are ignoring those points. They are ignoring them because they have nothing to do with the debate...

Well, they have everything to do with the debate when it comes to the merits or demerits of the repeal. :bang: :bang: And it has everything to do with the foolish arguments that DADT violated someone's rights. No rights were violated. Rights were suspended by written consent.

Carry on.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Your point was privileges aren't protected. I pointed out an example (buying a house) where a privilege is protected.

No buying a house is not protected! Buying a house must be earned. One must be able to afford the mortgage and upkeep of a house before a bank will qualify a potential buyer. Stated in other terms: There are CONDITIONS to home ownership which must be met. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Likewise, there were various conditions which had to be met in order for anyone to join the military.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

No buying a house is not protected! Buying a house must be earned. One must be able to afford the mortgage and upkeep of a house before a bank will qualify a potential buyer. Stated in other terms: There are CONDITIONS to home ownership which must be met. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Likewise, there were various conditions which had to be met in order for anyone to join the military.

Boxcar

You know this, but you can't discriminate when selling a home. That was my point. I understand your point about conditions. One of the "conditions" to buy a home cannot be "you must be white."

[GameTheory]

Well, they have everything to do with the debate when it comes to the merits or demerits of the repeal. Not really. The repeal doesn't just affect them -- it affects the policy going forward. You can't be handcuffed to a bad policy just because people are currently living with it. That's just stupid. IF they wanted to go back to asking and demanding to be told and then kicking people out that answered wrongly, that would be breaking the agreement (making it more restrictive), but since it is becoming less restrictive it doesn't really matter.

The only important question is, "What is the optimal policy that balances the rights of citizens and the need to have an effective military?" If we don't have a good reason for restricting rights, we shouldn't do it. We have no such (strong) reason now. No one can seriously argue that gays can't shoot straight or be effective soldiers. (Especially since we've always HAD gay soldiers and some of them are war heroes. Not to mention intelligence officers, etc.) The only reason to keep them out is if all the other soldiers are going to freak out enough to cause major problems. And most of that resistance seems to have melted away with time. While a significant portion of people do still think gay behavior is wrong or "unnatural", not so many still think they are crazy perverts that can't be trusted, are going to molest their children, etc.

Therefore, there is no reason to treat them like they are going to cause problems when they aren't. All this other nonsense is tangential and doesn't speak to the basic question, "What damn good reason do you have to keep an able-bodied and willing American out of the military?"

[GameTheory]

No buying a house is not protected! Buying a house must be earned. One must be able to afford the mortgage and upkeep of a house before a bank will qualify a potential buyer. Stated in other terms: There are CONDITIONS to home ownership which must be met. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Likewise, there were various conditions which had to be met in order for anyone to join the military.
Yes, conditions RELEVANT to the job. The reason gay people are banned isn't anything about THEM -- it is about how everyone else responds to them.

[Jay Trotter]

No buying a house is not protected! Buying a house must be earned. One must be able to afford the mortgage and upkeep of a house before a bank will qualify a potential buyer. Stated in other terms: There are CONDITIONS to home ownership which must be met. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Likewise, there were various conditions which had to be met in order for anyone to join the military.

Boxcar


That's the whole point (insert word of choice here), it shouldn't matter if your gay or straight. The condition that must be met is your willingness to serve your country.

According to you, we should continue to exist by the rules of 1776, when conditions would dictate african americans and then women couldn't serve either. Do you not believe in evolution -- oops, my bad, of course you don't!

I don't believe the persons affected by this legislation desire to go around bragging about their sexual exploits, they just don't want to hide their "true" selves or "lie" about it. And why should they have to? Because old fossils like you can't get their pointy little heads wrapped around the issue of equality.

Suggested reading over the Holiday Season -- Horton Hears a Who! A person is a person no matter how small. Hell, I'll even lump you into that category even though it might be a bit of stretch.

Good day Mr. Grinch

[boxcar]

Yes, conditions RELEVANT to the job. The reason gay people are banned isn't anything about THEM -- it is about how everyone else responds to them.

Oh, cute...so in your world, anyone who considers same sex sex to be abnormal, deviant human behavior is the one who is deviant, abnormal, weird -- and above all else -- Politically Incorrect! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And furthermore, home ownership ultimately has far less to do with a person's job than it does with that person's personal finances. Just ask anyone who buys big ticket items with cash.

Also, home ownership has more to do with one's personal credit history which in turn has everything to do about the trustworthiness, creditworthiness and reliability of the APPLICANT, i.e the PERSON.

Bottom line: Home ownership has more to do with "them" at the end of the day than it does about having a job. One can have the best job on the planet but if his PERSONAL credit history sucks raw eggs, he probably won't get very far.

Any more brilliant rebuttals, GT? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Oh, cute...so in your world, anyone who considers same sex sex to be abnormal, deviant human behavior is the one who is deviant, abnormal, weird -- and above all else -- Politically Incorrect! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And furthermore, home ownership ultimately has far less to do with a person's job than it does with that person's personal finances. Just ask anyone who buys big ticket items with cash.

Also, home ownership has more to do with one's personal credit history which in turn has everything to do about the trustworthiness, creditworthiness and reliability of the APPLICANT, i.e the PERSON.

Bottom line: Home ownership has more to do with "them" at the end of the day than it does about having a job. One can have the best job on the planet but if his PERSONAL credit history sucks raw eggs, he probably won't get very far.

Any more brilliant rebuttals, GT? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Why are you always so smug? I honestly would like to know.

[Dahoss9698]

Look, I have a lesbian couple as neighbors who live right down the street from me and moved here about four years ago. From what I know about them and from what little contact I've had with them personally, they give the appearance of being perfect neighbors. They appear to be responsible people in every way imaginable. They are personable. They are considerate. And they're even pet lovers (which is how I got to initially meet them in the first place), etc., etc. I treat them as I would any other human being. I consider them to be created EQUAL, and not more or less equal than I am. Not everyone who is walking, talking and breathing has a political agenda or sports a victimization mental disorder. I certainly don't -- unless you consider that I want less government in my life. I just want to be left alone and be free from tyranny and to live my life in peace and as free as much as possible.

Boxcar

This is classic. Hey, I'm not a bigot because I have gay neighbors and I don't hate them to their face, just behind their back. How convincing.

The ironic thing is you are a walking, talking political agenda. 99% of your posts are dripping with your agenda.

The thing you don't get is all these people want is to be treated equally. They want to be able to serve their country and not have to worry about hiding or being discharged based on what they do in their bedroom. If you could just suspend your hate for a few minutes you'd see this. No one wants to change the fatigues to pink or change the flag to a rainbow flag. They just want to be treated like everyone else.

[boxcar]

That's the whole point (insert word of choice here), it shouldn't matter if your gay or straight. The condition that must be met is your willingness to serve your country.

Only in your alternate universe. There are academic and physical requirements that are qualifying prerequisites -- just as there would be with any job.

Now that I easily shot down your opening juvenile drivel, I don't find it necessary to honor the rest of your nonsense with a reply.

Have a good one,
Boxcar

[delayjf]

Maybe we should use *only* gay soldiers -- take care of that problem....

Imagine that, 5000 gay sailors on one ship out to sea for 6 months- what could go wrong.

[GameTheory]

Also, home ownership has more to do with one's personal credit history which in turn has everything to do about the trustworthiness, creditworthiness and reliability of the APPLICANT, i.e the PERSON.

Bottom line: Home ownership has more to do with "them" at the end of the day than it does about having a job. One can have the best job on the planet but if his PERSONAL credit history sucks raw eggs, he probably won't get very far.

Any more brilliant rebuttals, GT? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Don't need them, you're making my point for me. Home ownership has conditions relevant to being able to pay for the home, etc, and those are about the applicant. Right. But there is nothing about "being gay" that makes a person unfit because it is totally irrelevant to the conditions that matter -- Do you want to serve your country? Are you not a pacifist? Are you physically capable? Etc etc.

Ok, since you've jumped the shark and no one else is adding anything (on the other side of the debate), I'm out. Time for the famous "Boxcar gets the last word" where my arguments will be dismantled once and for all. As if you hadn't convinced everyone else already -- how could they not be swayed be such a stream of good sense and rigorous logic? Be gentle now.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Don't need them, you're making my point for me. Home ownership has conditions relevant to being able to pay for the home, etc, and those are about the applicant. Right. But there is nothing about "being gay" that makes a person unfit because it is totally irrelevant to the conditions that matter -- Do you want to serve your country? Are you not a pacifist? Are you physically capable? Etc etc.

Ok, since you've jumped the shark and no one else is adding anything (on the other side of the debate), I'm out. Time for the famous "Boxcar gets the last word" where my arguments will be dismantled once and for all. As if you hadn't convinced everyone else already -- how could they not be swayed be such a stream of good sense and rigorous logic? Be gentle now.

See this type of sarcasm is appreciated and funny. Take note Box.

[boxcar]

Why are you always so smug? I honestly would like to know.

First off, I'm not always smug. That's a gross exaggeration.

Secondly, whatever mood swings you may perceive depends on the amount of my caffeine intake at any given time.

Curiosity satisfied?

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

First off, I'm not always smug. That's a gross exaggeration.

Secondly, whatever mood swings you may perceive depends on the amount of my caffeine intake at any given time.

Curiosity satisfied?

Boxcar

Okay, but if you toned it down a little, I think most would appreciate it.

[boxcar]

Don't need them, you're making my point for me. Home ownership has conditions relevant to being able to pay for the home, etc, and those are about the applicant. Right. But there is nothing about "being gay" that makes a person unfit because it is totally irrelevant to the conditions that matter -- Do you want to serve your country? Are you not a pacifist? Are you physically capable? Etc etc.

Ok, since you've jumped the shark and no one else is adding anything (on the other side of the debate), I'm out. Time for the famous "Boxcar gets the last word" where my arguments will be dismantled once and for all. As if you hadn't convinced everyone else already -- how could they not be swayed be such a stream of good sense and rigorous logic? Be gentle now.

Okay, Mr. Rigorous Logic: Serving one's country doesn't take place in a vacuum. We're not talking about an army that consists of only an individual. Serving in the military is about serving within a relatively tight knit community. It has to do with with how people are likely to react to one other -- about relationships -- about how they will likely perform as part of a TEAM -- as a unit. It's about determining beforehand how fit they are to serve in terms of their physical, psychological and academic qualifications. There's a lot more involved to serving in the military than mere willingness. One can be willing to serve his or her country, and yet not be psychologically equipped. One can be genuinely willing to pay for the house he wants to buy, but an objective outsider (such as a bank) may determine that he's not equipped because of his credit history. In both scenarios it's far more about the person, notwithstanding different points of focus on their personal lives.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This is classic. Hey, I'm not a bigot because I have gay neighbors and I don't hate them to their face, just behind their back. How convincing.

The ironic thing is you are a walking, talking political agenda. 99% of your posts are dripping with your agenda.

The thing you don't get is all these people want is to be treated equally. They want to be able to serve their country and not have to worry about hiding or being discharged based on what they do in their bedroom. If you could just suspend your hate for a few minutes you'd see this. No one wants to change the fatigues to pink or change the flag to a rainbow flag. They just want to be treated like everyone else.

No! What you don't get is that the more militant gay lobby is fighting to be treated MORE EQUALLY, just as Blacks are today under Affirmative Action laws.

Since there were fewer than 1,000 discharges on average across all the branches per year due to violations of DADT, I would conclude that as imperfect as this policy was, it worked fairly well. I do not object to gays serving in the military per se. I object to what will ensue politically due to this decision. I see the handwriting. Many here apparently don't, including you.

And what is my political agenda, since you claim you know? Tell me.

Boxcar

[Dahoss9698]

No! What you don't get is that the more militant gay lobby is fighting to be treated MORE EQUALLY, just as Blacks are today under Affirmative Action laws.

Since there were fewer than 1,000 discharges on average across all the branches per year due to violations of DADT, I would conclude that as imperfect as this policy was, it worked fairly well. I do not object to gays serving in the military per se. I object to what will ensue politically due to this decision. I see the handwriting. Many here apparently don't, including you.

And what is my political agenda, since you claim you know? Tell me.

Boxcar

Oh...interesting. No one "gets it" except for you. Of course you are totally wrong, but that should be expected. When you rely on fear mongering, it's tough to see past that.

What is your political agenda? Seriously? Isn't that obvious to anyone that has ever opened up a thread in this room?

[Saratoga_Mike]

No! What you don't get is that the more militant gay lobby is fighting to be treated MORE EQUALLY, just as Blacks are today under Affirmative Action laws.

Since there were fewer than 1,000 discharges on average across all the branches per year due to violations of DADT, I would conclude that as imperfect as this policy was, it worked fairly well. I do not object to gays serving in the military per se. I object to what will ensue politically due to this decision. I see the handwriting. Many here apparently don't, including you.

And what is my political agenda, since you claim you know? Tell me.

Boxcar

So if we could guarantee the repeal of DADT did not lead to any additional special rights for gays, you would support the repeal, correct?

[riskman]

Imagine that, 5000 gay sailors on one ship out to sea for 6 months- what could go wrong.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Good sense of humor is exactly what is needed at this point.

[boxcar]

So if we could guarantee the repeal of DADT did not lead to any additional special rights for gays, you would support the repeal, correct?

And "IFs and BUTs were CANDY and NUTS, every day would be Christmas, too.

Did you bother to read the AP article I posted yesterday?

And to GT: I want to add another requirement -- another condition to joining the military to three I just mentioned a little while ago, while I'm thinking of it. In addition to those three, there is also the moral or character assessments of potential enlistees. Does not the military conduct background checks? Does the military take anyone who comes along just on their stated "willingness to serve"? Does the service take anyone with a criminal record? A misdemeanor conviction? A felony conviction, etc.?

So, GT, your willingness argument is weak -- very weak. Yes, willingness is obviously an important component, but it's hardly the only one and in fact, it's not the most important one by any means.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

And "IFs and BUTs were CANDY and NUTS, every day would be Christmas, too.

Did you bother to read the AP article I posted yesterday?

And to GT: I want to add another requirement -- another condition to joining the military to three I just mentioned a little while ago, while I'm thinking of it. In addition to those three, there is also the moral or character assessments of potential enlistees. Does not the military conduct background checks? Does the military take anyone who comes along just on their stated "willingness to serve"? Does the service take anyone with a criminal record? A misdemeanor conviction? A felony conviction, etc.?So, GT, your willingness argument is weak -- very weak. Yes, willingness is obviously an important component, but it's hardly the only one and in fact, it's not the most important one by any means.

Boxcar

In reality, you're wrong on all of these. The military has dramatically reduced these standards over the past few yrs. One moment and I believe I can link you to a story. And no I certainly didn't read an Associated Press story.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Here you go and please don't try to label me as anti-military. I'm just trying to enlighten you on a subject you mentioned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html

“The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.
….
It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.”

[boxcar]

Here you go and please don't try to label me as anti-military. I'm just trying to enlighten you on a subject you mentioned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html

“The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show.
….
It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts, even as the total number of recruits dropped slightly. The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.”

You just made a great case for re-instituting the draft. Hopefully, they haven't lowered the bar to include convicted felons. :rolleyes:

Also, do you know if they're allowing sandbox drop-outs to enlist? ;)

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

You just made a great case for re-instituting the draft. Hopefully, they haven't lowered the bar to include convicted felons. :rolleyes:

Also, do you know if they're allowing sandbox drop-outs to enlist? ;)

Boxcar

Re-read your post - you didn't limit it to felonies. Doesn't matter - you'll never admit you didn't know something.

[boxcar]

What is your political agenda? Seriously? Isn't that obvious to anyone that has ever opened up a thread in this room?

Might be...but you're surely keeping it a big secret. Come on, Einstein, share your brilliant insights into what you think is my political agenda. Put up or shut up.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Re-read your post - you didn't limit it to felonies. Doesn't matter - you'll never admit you didn't know something.

Nor did I make any definitive statement apart from the fact that the military makes background checks! What part of the question marks didn't you understand in my post?

And then you wonder how my patience is tested. Learn to read!

And no, I didn't know the military has relaxed its standards -- which was the reason for the question marks! :bang: :bang: :bang: (But don't get the idea that I'm frustrated with you :rolleyes: )

And here's the link again to that AP story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101219/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military_reax

Note the headline carefully, please:

Gays see repeal as a civil rights milestone

Notice carefully, please, that the headline doesn't say "Boxcar sees repeal..."
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Enjoy the read,
Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Nor did I make any definitive statement apart from the fact that the military makes background checks! What part of the question marks didn't you understand in my post?

And then you wonder how my patience is tested. Learn to read!

And no, I didn't know the military has relaxed its standards -- which was the reason for the question marks! :bang: :bang: :bang: (But don't get the idea that I'm frustrated with you :rolleyes: )

And here's the link again to that AP story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101219/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military_reax

Note the headline carefully, please:

Gays see repeal as a civil rights milestone

Notice carefully, please, that the headline doesn't say "Boxcar sees repeal..."
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Enjoy the read,
Boxcar

I don't need to read an AP story, but I'd suggest you start reading newpapers. I'm serious here. I know you'd never read the NY Times, so I'd recommend you start with the Wall Street Journal. The news content has improved radically over the past five yrs. I read both papers front to back every day. You get the vast majority of your information from the internet, TV and talk radio. And please don't deny that.

[Dahoss9698]

Might be...but you're surely keeping it a big secret. Come on, Einstein, share your brilliant insights into what you think is my political agenda. Put up or shut up.

Boxcar

Actually you are trying to deflect away from what I am saying. Wonder why. Might be time for you to just shut up. God knows you've certainly put up more than enough crap today, yesterday, the day before, etc, etc, etc.

[boxcar]

I don't need to read an AP story

Of course not. This gives you the excuse you need to plead ignorant of the real reason for this repeal. Enjoy the darkness.

Boxcar

[Jay Trotter]

Okay, I'll send a box of chocolate covered nuts to our friend Boxie if he doesn't have to have the last word!

Beginning now.................

[boxcar]

Actually you are trying to deflect away from what I am saying. Wonder why. Might be time for you to just shut up. God knows you've certainly put up more than enough crap today, yesterday, the day before, etc, etc, etc.

This is the second time I have called your bluff. The first time you pretended to know something (anything) about the teachings of the bible. I called you on that and you shrunk back like a withered vine.

The second time you talked about my political agenda, as if you knew something -- anything. I called you on this by challenging to reveal to all here what it was, and you accuse me of deflecting.

Here's the deal with you: You're a fake, a fraud, a phony, an empty suit and an emperor as naked as a newborn. Other than these few minor flaws, you're a real gem. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Of course not. This gives you the excuse you need to plead ignorant of the real reason for this repeal. Enjoy the darkness.

Boxcar

Yes, the Wall Street Journal and NY Times didn't discuss various agendas behind the repeal. Hey even Rush reads the NY Times. Give it a try Box.

And for you to accuse anyone of being ignorant is, in the words of the great Bob Novak (God rest his soul), delicious.

[boxcar]

Okay, I'll send a box of chocolate covered nuts to our friend Boxie if he doesn't have to have the last word!

Beginning now.................

Hey...if they're high quality, dark chocolates, send 'em to me. I LOVE good chocolate. My silence can definitely be bought. :D :D

Boxcar

[Jay Trotter]

Hey...if they're high quality, dark chocolates, send 'em to me. I LOVE good chocolate. My silence can definitely be bought. :D :D

Boxcar

Okay, you're on.........I'll give you the break that maybe you were typing that last post as I posted mine, so.............

..........beginning now................

Trotter:ThmbUp:

you'll have to PM me that address though and then I might show up in that Church of yours one day

[Saratoga_Mike]

Okay, you're on.........I'll give you the break that maybe you were typing that last post as I posted mine, so.............

..........beginning now................

Trotter:ThmbUp:

you'll have to PM me that address though and then I might show up in that Church of yours one day

Can we take bets on this??? Over/under on the next post in this thread from Box: 12 minutes! And no cheating by starting a very similar thread --gotta watch this guy Trotter - he'll steal those chocolates from you AND get in the last word!!!

[boxcar]

Okay, you're on.........I'll give you the break that maybe you were typing that last post as I posted mine, so.............

..........beginning now................

Trotter:ThmbUp:

you'll have to PM me that address though and then I might show up in that Church of yours one day


Showing up in my church would be a good idea. But I'll pass on the chocolates. Just because I said that I could be bought did not mean cheaply. After all, do I sound like guy who suffers from low self-esteem problems and would sell myself short? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
P.S. But don't pay any heed to clueless 'cap. I am humble, nonetheless. :D

[boxcar]

Can we take bets on this??? Over/under on the next post in this thread from Box: 12 minutes! And no cheating by starting a very similar thread --gotta watch this guy Trotter - he'll steal those chocolates from you AND get in the last word!!!

You've got my number. I am a master thief. Finally, someone manages to hit the barn wall with respect to me. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[Jay Trotter]

Can we take bets on this??? Over/under on the next post in this thread from Box: 12 minutes! And no cheating by starting a very similar thread --gotta watch this guy Trotter - he'll steal those chocolates from you AND get in the last word!!!

Nope.........he can't post in this thread period! If he does -- no chocolates. I'll mail them out on the 27th. If he posts after that then he's a gutless cuss and will owe everyone who's posted in this thread a box of chocolates -- quality ones too!

PS. And he can't mention or coyly mention this in another thread or we'll hunt him down like a dog! This actually might be worth it if this shuts him up for a few minutes. :jump:

[Jay Trotter]

Showing up in my church would be a good idea. But I'll pass on the chocolates. Just because I said that I could be bought did not mean cheaply. After all, do I sound like guy who suffers from low self-esteem problems and would sell myself short? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
P.S. But don't pay any heed to clueless 'cap. I am humble, nonetheless. :D

Wow, good call Mike! And I was going to send high quality Chocolates too! The guy just can't help himself! :faint:

[Saratoga_Mike]

You've got my number. I am a master thief. Finally, someone manages to hit the barn wall with respect to me. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

I think you just passed up a nice box of chocolates.

[Tom]

Again, when the gays signed up for military service, THEY AGREED to suspend their right to tell or flaunt for the duration of their service! What do you and others not understand about this?

They were forced to do this, and it is wrong. How can you not understand this? And using the word flaunt only shows ignorance. I suppose Martin Luther King was uppity? I suppose when he boarded the bus, he AGREED to sit in the back?

Come off your high horse here - there is no way you can justify limiting one's right's to be who they choose to be, or are wired to be....whatever.

Would you support DADT for republicans, seeing how our CNC is a democrat?

[boxcar]

Yes, the Wall Street Journal and NY Times didn't discuss various agendas behind the repeal.

So, why should I read inferior publications? I do not aspire to remain in the darkness, as you do.

Furthermore, I'm not impressed with your reading material because I'm not that impressed with your reading skills, given how you blew interpreting my post #169. I'm thinkin' you might not understand half of what you're reading in those publications, anyway. :lol: :lol:

Hey even Rush reads the NY Times.

Hmm...So, does this make you a bona fide dittohead? :D

Give it a try Box

Rush or the NY Slimes?

And for you to accuse anyone of being ignorant is, in the words of the great Bob Novak (God rest his soul), delicious.

Yeah, I bet he's proud to death of you, since you have chosen to remain ignorant on an important news item pertaining to this thread. (Either that or he's rolling over in his grave.) :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[Dahoss9698]

Here's the deal with you: You're a fake, a fraud, a phony, an empty suit and an emperor as naked as a newborn. Other than these few minor flaws, you're a real gem. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Here's the deal with you: you're a bigot hiding behind a book. You think your book gives you an excuse to act like a douchebag, but it doesn't. You're an ignorant, self absorbed, pompous megalomaniac. I've seen you blame rape victims in the past and your behavior in this thread is disgusting. You think it's okay to preach hate because in your eyes your book "teaches" that is the way. You sort of remind me of Ted Haggard.

Other than these minor flaws you seem like a real good guy though.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So, why should I read inferior publications? I do not aspire to remain in the darkness, as you do.

Furthermore, I'm not impressed with your reading material because I'm not that impressed with your reading skills, given how you blew interpreting my post #169. I'm thinkin' you might not understand half of what you're reading in those publications, anyway. :lol: :lol:



Hmm...So, does this make you a bona fide dittohead? :D



Rush or the NY Slimes?



Yeah, I bet he's proud to death of you, since you have chosen to remain ignorant on an important news item pertaining to this thread. (Either that or he's rolling over in his grave.) :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

I've listened to Rush in the past, not so much anymore. He's too much part of the establishment now. By the way, you're smug because you're insecure. Read Box! Read! Then you'll know what you're talking about.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Here's the deal with you: you're a bigot hiding behind a book. You think your book gives you an excuse to act like a douchebag, but it doesn't. You're an ignorant, self absorbed, pompous megalomaniac. I've seen you blame rape victims in the past and your behavior in this thread is disgusting. You think it's okay to preach hate because in your eyes your book "teaches" that is the way. You sort of remind me of Ted Haggard.

Other than these minor flaws you seem like a real good guy though.

What I like about you Dahoss is you really make me laugh when you aren't even trying--the last line is a gem after the prior paragraph.

[boxcar]

They were forced to do this, and it is wrong. How can you not understand this? And using the word flaunt only shows ignorance. I suppose Martin Luther King was uppity? I suppose when he boarded the bus, he AGREED to sit in the back?

Come off your high horse here - there is no way you can justify limiting one's right's to be who they choose to be, or are wired to be....whatever.

Would you support DADT for republicans, seeing how our CNC is a democrat?

No, they were not "forced". Their other option was to NOT join! Get real, Tom! Life is filled with tough decisions we have to make, including those whereby we have to temporarily suspend our rights -- even in a free nation. Every single day in the public and private sectors people freely choose to suspend their rights. As stated previously, DADT will prove to be the lesser of two evils -- based on what will follow as a result of its repeal. Take these words to the bank.

No, King wasn't "uppity" but I bet you he has rolled over in his grave numerous times over all his black uppity brothers and sisters since him -- thanks largely to bad laws! Many blacks today do not believe as King did -- that people should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. They simply don't. Too many of them have an entitlement mentality based on the color of their skin, and that wasn't what King was all about.

And I don't know what in the world you mean by the last paragraph or what lame parallel you're attempting to draw. Maybe you should ask your question to the CNC since he told the Repugs they could sit at the back of the bus. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[banacek]

Also, Boxcar is so sexy when he gets all self-righteous.
If that is the case, we should inform People magazine. He is clearly the sexiest man alive.

[boxcar]

Other than these minor flaws you seem like a real good guy though.

Well, I am a nice guy. Thank you.

But regarding this "preaching hate" thingy obsession you have, I have just one question for you: Since you have implied that you're a bible scholar or student of sorts, what part of my tag line don't you get? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I think you just passed up a nice box of chocolates.

It wouldn't be be the first time I've blown an assignment. :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The guy just can't help himself! :faint:

Sure I can. I have goodies sitting right on my desk in front of me. :p Too bad you're there and I'm here, otherwise I'd offer you some.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

If that is the case, we should inform People magazine. He is clearly the sexiest man alive.

And you forgot good looking and charming. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[Dahoss9698]

Well, I am a nice guy. Thank you.

But regarding this "preaching hate" thingy obsession you have, I have just one question for you: Since you have implied that you're a bible scholar or student of sorts, what part of my tag line don't you get? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I never implied I was a bible scholar. If you read what I wrote instead of trying to deflect away and have the last word you would have seen that. I have read it and had over 10 years of religious study. It wasn't for me. Part of the reason it wasn't for me was I couldn't stomach being associated with hypocrites like you who use the book as a vehicle for their hate.

If religion gets you through the day, more power to you. As I have said my issue is the way religion is used. You remind me of the preacher's you see at 3am on infomercials trying to get donations and in return you'll send them a tablet of holy water.

[NJ Stinks]

In a pretty serious discussion thread on Don't Ask - Don't Tell, who would have thought I'd find three of the funniest lines I've ever read in this Forum.

No. 3:

Maybe we should use *only* gay soldiers -- take care of that problem....

No. 2:

Imagine that, 5000 gay sailors on one ship out to sea for 6 months- what could go wrong.


No. 1:

Your chain of logic is screwy. You could take the logic you just expressed and determine that we should now no longer let black people sit at the front of the bus, because look how that turned out.

Intentional or unintentional, great stuff! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :lol:

[boxcar]

I never implied I was a bible scholar. If you read what I wrote instead of trying to deflect away and have the last word you would have seen that.

Well, let me tell you something Dahoosy -- in the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king because he can see more than you! In post #52 you wrote:

I don't hate the book or those who believe its "teachings". I just have a problem with those that use it as a crutch to be intolerable and hate filled. Which is really the complete opposite of what the "teachings" are designed to do. (emphasis mine)

You clearly implied that you know what the "teachings are designed to do". Yet, you came up empty when I tested you on this knowledge.

And now you dig an even deeper pit for yourself after I asked you a simple question about my tag line. You claim that you have ten years of "religious study" -- yet you're not a scholar -- not even a student? :bang: And again, you refuse to answer my simple question about my tag line.

For someone who twice now clearly implied that he knows so much more than I do (because according to you I misuse scripture), you have have so little to say when challenged. As a said, earlier, you're a phony blowhard. And I don't hold this against you. I really don't. I understand how intolerant bigots like you can't handle evangelical Christians' belief system -- because by your own admission, you have a "problem" with folks like me. YOU have the PROBLEM. (Let that try to sink through your skull before you try preaching to me about how intolerant you think I am!) As for me, the bible says much about people like yourself. So, you do not phase me in the least.
I do not take your hatred or bigotry personally.

I have read it and had over 10 years of religious study. It wasn't for me. Part of the reason it wasn't for me was I couldn't stomach being associated with hypocrites like you who use the book as a vehicle for their hate.

If religion gets you through the day, more power to you. As I have said my issue is the way religion is used. You remind me of the preacher's you see at 3am on infomercials trying to get donations and in return you'll send them a tablet of holy water.

Methinks your "issue" is way deeper than that. But be that as it may, go in peace. And whatever you do, try to steer clear on those "infomercials" on the boob tube. You time would be better spent studying the scriptures. Who knows? One day you might even be able to answer one of my questions.

Boxcar

[Dahoss9698]

So, you do not phase me in the least.
Boxcar

Methinks you need to hit up confession this weekend, because you are clearly telling a lie here. You're quite bothered by me and my attempt to introduce you to the 21st century. You also don't like that I can play your game better than you and stay calm while doing it.

As the book says
Lev. 5:5 - "he shall confess that in which he has sinned"

I have a problem with ignorant bigots that hide their hate behind religion. That's you in a nutshell. If that makes me wrong, I don't ever want to be right. I have a problem with people that blame rape victims and try and hide behind the book when doing it. Again, if that's wrong, I'm fine with that.

Methinks your issue is way deeper than just hate of others. I'm sensing a high level of self hate. Wonder why. I have a few theories, but I'll save them for another time. Have a nice holiday Boxcar. It's been fun making an ass out of you (again).

[hcap]

Hey box, I guess I am not the only one to see the lump of coal that you call your heart. Your so called "Logic" all by itself can be twisted into empty mental shenanigans supporting ANYTHING. Without self understanding there is no check on self deception. I think you have bypassed that essential truth common to all religions.

Isn't it curious that what other people see in you is apparent to all except you?

Amazing that such a self professed Christian can be so anti-Christ. A word of advice: try a little love, after all Christmas is just around the corner.

[Tom]

Good GOD, hcap......will we allow gays to celebrate Christmas?!?
I mean, according to some, they can choose some other holiday, right?:rolleyes:

And btw, who are these Christians out there flaunting Christmas anyways?


Happy Festivous to all, and to all a good night!

[hcap]

Cristian gays can always convert.
We can always use a few more Jews.

And unlike SOME, we are not so particular :D

Flaunting Hanuka is kinda tough, and any guilty converted gays flaunting ANYTHING will be punished by being forced to listen to my aunt Esther relating endless boring tales about the best Diners in Fortt Lauderdale. Particularly the lox and bagel breakfast specials

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Flaunting Hanuka is kinda tough...

bullshit and you know it... those kids intentionally tortured us in school with a new present every friggin' day for half the month while we got threatened with an empty stocking for 24 days straight every time we so much as looked in the wrong direction... I did learn to love potato latkas and can throw some mean dreidel...

[cj's dad]

I have no opinion on DADT as I never had the good fortune to have served in the military, however I did find this article interesting;

snip> The Headlines Are Wrong: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Has Not Been Repealed

By Cliff Kincaid | December 20, 2010

The burden is on the gay rights lobby to prove that the changes would have no negative effect on any of the above.

The headlines said that the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy had been repealed. “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is repealed by Senate; bill awaits Obama’s signing,” was the headline over the front page article in The Washington Post by Ed O’Keefe. But the article went on to note, in the 22nd paragraph, that top military leaders must find or certify that changes to the current policy “must not affect troop readiness, cohesion or military recruitment and retention.” How is this possible when Marine Commandant General Jim Amos has already said that the changes would cost lives?

Calling repeal a major distraction, Amos said, “I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center, in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”

The Post went on, “Even after the finding, lawmakers will be able to hold hearings for two months to review the Pentagon’s policies and procedures for accepting openly gay troops, according to congressional aides familiar with the matter.”

This leaves open the door for Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to hold hearings. McKeon opposes repeal and praised Amos for his comments. <snip


http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-headlines-are-wrong-

[boxcar]

Isn't it curious that what other people see in you is apparent to all except you?

Curious? Not hardly! Is a disciple above his Master? Was not the Christ himself a wee bit misunderstood by Jews and Gentiles alike -- even unto death?

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Curious? Not hardly! Is a disciple above his Master? Was not the Christ himself a wee bit misunderstood by Jews and Gentiles alike -- even unto death?Boxcar

Now you're comparing yourself to Christ? Funny, your tagline is never a redemptive message, rather always one of fire and brimstone.

[boxcar]

I have a problem...

Yup, you do, Mr. Worldly Wiseman. And here it is in a nutshell:

John 17:14
14 "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
NASB

Methinks those late wee hours infomercials you watch have fried your brain, as you sit there hours on end allowing your brain to passively soak up the garbage like a sponge soaks up water . Try to say "no" to the one-eyed monster and spend that time more constructively in the Word, instead.

Meanwhile, I do thank you for helping to bolster my faith by giving affirmation to passages such as the one above.

And I wish you a Merry Christmas, too! :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yup, you do, Mr. Worldly Wiseman. And here it is in a nutshell:

John 17:14
14 "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
NASB

Methinks those late wee hours infomercials you watch have fried your brain, as you sit there hours on end allowing your brain to passively soak up the garbage like a sponge soaks up water . Try to say "no" to the one-eyed monster and spend that time more constructively in the Word, instead.

Meanwhile, I do thank you for helping to bolster my faith by giving affirmation to passages such as the one above.

And I wish you a Merry Christmas, too! :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

Come on Box, you get most of your information from the Internet, talk radio and TV, yet you want to question someone else's viewing habits. Rich!

Did you read at least a few pages of the A section of the Journal today?

[boxcar]

Now you're comparing yourself to Christ? Funny, your tagline is never a redemptive message, rather always one of fire and brimstone.

Why do you marvel at this? See post 212.

And to which "fire and brimstone" tag lines would you be referring to, specifically?

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why do you marvel at this? See post 212.

And to which "fire and brimstone" tag lines would you be referring to, specifically?Boxcar

I won't look at your old posts - it's all the same.

Most of your tag lines over time have been the "fire and brimestone" type. Why not post the redemptive messages of Christ?

[boxcar]

Come on Box, you get most of your information from the Internet, talk radio and TV, yet you want to question someone else's viewing habits. Rich!

Did you read at least a few pages of the A section of the Journal today?

Uhh...do you understand the difference between passive and active activities? Do you understand that reading, falls into the latter category? Do you understand why reading falls into the latter category?

And for your info, I don't watch TV. Gave up that garbage a long time ago.

No, I didn't read a few pages of the A section today? Did you read that AP article I posted, yet? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I won't look at your old posts - it's all the same.

Most of your tag lines over time have been the "fire and brimestone" type. Why not post the redemptive messages of Christ?

I disagree. They have not. Your complaint is unwarranted. The following, though, could be considered "fire and brimstone":

Rev 20:10-15
10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
NASB

Now...to me...the above is "fire and brimstone".

And finally, take a wild guess as to who, in the bible, taught more about Hell than any other teacher. I'll even give you a hint: He is primarily found in the NT.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Uhh...do you understand the difference between passive and active activities? Do you understand that reading, falls into the latter category? Do you understand why reading falls into the latter category?

And for your info, I don't watch TV. Gave up that garbage a long time ago.

No, I didn't read a few pages of the A section today? Did you read that AP article I posted, yet? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Box, we aren't focused on my reading an AP news story. You're the one who is poorly informed. I remember an exchange with you about a yr ago on Obama's healthcare plan, which I opposed. You couldn't articulate why you opposed it. You posted a video from Fox. Wait? Define "a long time ago," as in I gave up TV a "long time ago." Most people would define a long time ago as at least a couple of yrs. Where did you see that Fox piece? Perhaps you watched it on the Internet - ahh that's still watching TV in my book. Without access to the Internet, my bet is you still can't explain the major component's of Obama's healthcare plan. Don't worry, just makes you a typical American.

[boxcar]

Box, we aren't focused on my reading an AP news story. You're the one who is poorly informed. I remember an exchange with you about a yr ago on Obama's healthcare plan, which I opposed. You couldn't articulate why you opposed it. You posted a video from Fox. Wait? Define "a long time ago," as in I gave up TV a "long time ago." Most people would define a long time ago as at least a couple of yrs. Where did you see that Fox piece? Perhaps you watched it on the Internet - ahh that's still watching TV in my book. Without access to the Internet, my bet is you still can't explain the major component's of Obama's healthcare plan. Don't worry, just makes you a typical American.

But you're the one who wants to remain that way.

And for your info -- when the huge discussions ensued about "health care reform" prior to its passage, I said very early on that I was opposed to the whole idea of anything that smacked of socialized medicine in principle. You must have forgotten I stated this, right? :rolleyes: But...do you understand what is meant when someone says that he is opposed to something in principle? Anyway...I do. And many others do, too. This is why I didn't bother to get into all the minutiae of of the discussions.

And yes, watching vids on the internet could be likened to "watching TV", I suppose. But the time spent watching short vids is hardly like sitting for hours on end watching various programs. In fact, selectively watching Internet vids requires more active engagement of the mind because in most cases the viewer is actively seeking certain kinds of information and must listen carefully to make sure that's the info he or she was seeking. Therefore, the mind is more fully engaged in this kind of activity.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

But you're the one who wants to remain that way.

And for your info -- when the huge discussions ensued about "health care reform" prior to its passage, I said very early on that I was opposed to the whole idea of anything that smacked of socialized medicine in principle. You must have forgotten I stated this, right? :rolleyes: But...do you understand what is meant when someone says that he is opposed to something in principle? Anyway...I do. And many others do, too. This is why I didn't bother to get into all the minutiae of of the discussions.Boxcar

Minutiae? You couldn't and still can't describe the plan at a high level.

Here are the issues I have with you: 1) You're smug - you think you're smarter than everyone else. Trust me, you aren't; 2) You're ill-informed, yet you're condescending to the well-informed. I disagree with someone like MostPost the vast majority of the time, but I respect him. Why? He's actually well-informed. Meanwhile, you unknowingly celebrate your own ignorance, blithely casting aside any facts that don't agree with your position.

Finally, I really hope Dahoss misconstrued your position on the rape issue referenced earlier.

[boxcar]

Minutiae? You couldn't and still can't describe the plan at a high level.

Here are the issues I have with you: 1) You're smug - you think you're smarter than everyone else. Trust me, you aren't; 2) You're ill-informed, yet you're condescending to the well-informed. I disagree with someone like MostPost the vast majority of the time, but I respect him. Why? He's actually well-informed. Meanwhile, you unknowingly celebrate your own ignorance, blithely casting aside any facts that don't agree with your position.

Finally, I really hope Dahoss misconstrued your position on the rape issue referenced earlier.

Ahh...so you have problems or issues, too, eh? Take a number and stand in line.

And, yes, Dahossy has entirely misrepresented something I have stated in the past -- probably pertaining to the teaching in Job 4:8, as I recall.

Meanwhile, Mr. Pot...get yourself up to speed on the gay lobby's agenda as stated in that AP article. Discipline yourself and try to get past the headline you don't like because it upsets your presuppositions on gays, generally, and the DADT issue more specifically.

Finally, don't trouble yourself with what you think I don't know. Instead, be very concerned with all the things you don't know in scripture that pertain to the safety of your immortal soul. You worry about relatively insignificant things when there are far weightier matters pertaining to yourself which warrant your deepest concerns.

May You and Yours Have a Great Christmas!

Boxcar
P.S. All those "redemptive" passages you seemingly have desired are in the Book and are screaming for your immediate attention.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Ahh...so you have problems or issues, too, eh? Take a number and stand in line.

And, yes, Dahossy has entirely misrepresented something I have stated in the past -- probably pertaining to the teaching in Job 4:8, as I recall.

Meanwhile, Mr. Pot...get yourself up to speed on the gay lobby's agenda as stated in that AP article. Discipline yourself and try to get past the headline you don't like because it upsets your presuppositions on gays, generally, and the DADT issue more specifically.

Finally, don't trouble yourself with what you think I don't know. Instead, be very concerned with all the things you don't know in scripture that pertain to the safety of your immortal soul. You worry about relatively insignificant things when there are far weightier matters pertaining to yourself which warrant your deepest concerns.

May You and Yours Have a Great Christmas!

Boxcar
P.S. All those "redemptive" passages you seemingly have desired are in the Book and are screaming for your immediate attention.

I go to church every Sunday and the vast majority of my charitible donations are to Christian-backed organizations.

Here's some food for thought for you:

"Classic research has suggested that the more people doubt their own beliefs the more, paradoxically, they are inclined to proselytize in favor of them." David Brooks 12/6/10 based on a study in Psychological Science

[hcap]

Curious? Not hardly! Is a disciple above his Master? Was not the Christ himself a wee bit misunderstood by Jews and Gentiles alike -- even unto death?Yeah but nobody thought his heart was a lump of coal.

Lloyd Bentsen..
"I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy".

Neither are you.

[Dahoss9698]

And I wish you a Merry Christmas, too! :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

Thanks buddy. Maybe you should come out of the closet once and for all for New Years. Might be a good way to start the year.

Just sayin'

[TJDave]

Cristian gays can always convert.
We can always use a few more Jews.

And unlike SOME, we are not so particular :D

Flaunting Hanuka is kinda tough, and any guilty converted gays flaunting ANYTHING will be punished by being forced to listen to my aunt Esther relating endless boring tales about the best Diners in Fortt Lauderdale. Particularly the lox and bagel breakfast specials


A Jewish Dilemma:

Ham at 1/2 price.


A Jewish Mother's Dilemma:

Son is gay but dating a doctor.

[Dahoss9698]

Finally, I really hope Dahoss misconstrued your position on the rape issue referenced earlier.

I didn't. The thread was closed, but here are some of his gems from it.

A young teeny bopper wearing her skirt up around her navel and her shirt with a neckline so low that it's begging to reach her boot tops didn't commit a crime either when she was raped by someone who thought she just might be in a mood for a little roll in the hay. But why provoke someone to act in an untoward manner? Why? What good can come of it?

It gets better....

DON'T GO SEEKING FOR TROUBLE BECAUSE CHANCES ARE GOOD THAT YOU'LL FIND IT.

Where is common sense around here? What is so difficult about a principle of human behavior that essentially says, "if you sow iniquity or trouble, expect to harvest it"!? :bang: :bang:

The slutty dresser analogy is valid because such a dresser is imprudent -- at best -- and more likely downright stupid and naive. When a girl dresses like a hooker, it's obvious she does so for basically one reason -- to draw attention to herself. But if she wants to do that, she had better be prepared to draw some undue attention -- too much of the wrong kind attention, perhaps.

Here's another scenario: Suppose a person is on a business trip and he's staying at this hotel in a big city not too far from downtown. So, after he settles in, has din din, etc., he decides he wants to sight-see a bit. He asks the desk clerk where's all the "girly" action in the area. The clerk tells him but advises him that the area isn't good and explains that the people who congregate to that section of town might also not think too highly of white people. He advises his guest to seek other options.

But the guest doesn't listen. The guy gets in his car, drives downtown, parks his car because he sees a bar that attracted his attention. But he had to park a few blocks away because there were so few legal parking spaces. After parking, he starts walking to the bar -- but on the way he gets stopped by several young black thugs, asking him for handout. He refuses. They persist. He gets his brains kicked in and his wallet isn't nearly as fat as it was a minute ago.

Now...did this victim commit a crime? No, of course not! Am I excusing the crime by the thugs? No, I am not! I am not making any excuses for them. But the indisputable fact remains, this victim could have avoided this! He has to assume some responsibility for his sheer stupidity. He ignored the advice of the desk clerk. He was in a strange town. Doesn't know anyone, etc. WHY "ASK" FOR TROUBLE?

Likewise, in the slutty girl analogy, she has to assume some responsibility for HER actions -- not the actions of the rapists -- but HER actions for inviting trouble from sinners like herself. What would she be thinking? That her fellow-sinners are morally superior to her? They're little angels, so it's okay if she behaves a little devilish? :bang: :bang:

This is what the text in Job is teaching. This is very simple, common sense stuff dealing with human behavior and the human condition. You sow trouble, expect to harvest it!

On how rape victims are "asking for it"

The bottom line here is this: When people, even unintentionally or naively, tempt others, such people are asking for trouble. They're sowing trouble (whether they realize it or not) and, therefore, should expect to harvest what they have sowed. This biblical "sow what you reap" human behavioral principle is central to understanding our own moral conduct and any subsequent consequences that may arise out of that, as well as our moral duty toward our fellow man. We have no logical, reasonable and, certainly, no biblical reason to expect great results (good consequences) out of our stupid behavior involving temptable activities.

On placing blame on the victim

It appears that in your mind a woman or a girl can flaunt her wares shamelessly and never have to worry about accepting any responsibility for her actions. She doesn't have to worry a whit about how other people (especially males) perceive her. A woman can never be accused of being a temptress?

Are you aware the bible exhorts women to dress modestly (1 Tim 2:9)]? I wonder why that would be? Any wild guesses?

Here's Mr Wondeful basically calling the rape karma because the person might have been dressed provocatively

In your pipe dreams, Rooks. My analogies are biblically-grounded, which means they're perfect.

For your info, immodestly dressed girls or women essentially dress that way for one reason -- to appeal to men (or if they're lesbos to other women, I suppose). Sometimes they can attract the wrong kind of person and get themselves into all kinds of hot water -- into situations they later regret.

We see this moral principle of "sowing what you reap" very often in our lives. Every one of us could relate real life stories! Heck...even the Eastern religions recognize this biblical principle and usually refer to it as "karma".
It's no wonder at all, therefore, that the bible enjoins Christian women and girls to dress modestly.



It was quite a performance.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Dahoss,

Sadly, I never really thought you had misconstrued anything, but I thought there was an outside chance.

Answer: Someone who is bothered by provocatively dressed young women, gays "flaunting" their stuff and everyone else's religious well-being.

Now to the Dr. Freud's out there - what's the question?

[boxcar]

I would reply in defense, Dahoosy, but this thread would end up getting closed, too due to your hijacking it. Better to let you grope around in the darkness of your own ignorance. Besides, it is written:

Prov 17:28
Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise;
When he closes his lips, he is counted prudent.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Prov 17:28
Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise;
When he closes his lips, he is counted prudent.

Boxcar

More delicious irony, which will never dawn on you.

[boxcar]

More delicious irony, which will never dawn on you.


:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: You're so predictable you bore me to sleep.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: You're so predictable you bore me to sleep.

Boxcar

Work on my Jeopardy question above. In the meantime, I'm going to have a few drinks--I'll keep an eye out for militant gays. They're everywhere, flaunting and strutting their stuff.

[boxcar]

Work on my Jeopardy question above. In the meantime, I'm going to have a few drinks--I'll keep an eye out for militant gays. They're everywhere, flaunting and strutting their stuff.

Many of your posts already suggested that you're in "a few drinks" mode perpetually. Enjoy you liquid lunch. But don't forget to come up for air.

Boxcar

[hcap]

A Jewish Dilemma:
Ham at 1/2 price.

Buy the ham in wholesale lots sell it to the Christians who crack Jewish jokes at 120% markup

A Jewish Mother's Dilemma:

Son is gay but dating a doctor.

Yes but is the doctor Jewish?


:cool: :cool:

[newtothegame]

I could of swron this was about DADT somehwre in this thread lol.
Not a jab at BOX in anyway...but my how the evolution of this thread has taken shape !

[Jay Trotter]

This is still going on?


Why couldn't you just take the box of chocolates and



http://lewisallstyle.com/imagegallery//albums/userpics/A752C-piehole.jpg


SHEESH!!!!

[Saratoga_Mike]

This is still going on?


Why couldn't you just take the box of chocolates and



http://lewisallstyle.com/imagegallery//albums/userpics/A752C-piehole.jpg


SHEESH!!!!

Classic Trotter!

[Saratoga_Mike]

Many of your posts already suggested that you're in "a few drinks" mode perpetually. Enjoy you liquid lunch. But don't forget to come up for air.

Boxcar

Not to worry, Box, unlike you, I do things in moderation! Just to let you know, I did not encounter any militant gays in the bar. What should I look for in militant gays? Are they always flaunting or should I look for more subtle clues?

[bigmack]

What should I look for in militant gays?
They're the ones asking you to sign another petition outside a grocery store after 30 some states have voted down gay marriage. Democracy is not to be tolerated.

[Saratoga_Mike]

They're the ones asking you to sign another petition outside a grocery store after 30 some states have voted down gay marriage. Democracy is not to be tolerated.

This time of year there are lots of people in front of grocery stores, from the Salvation Army to the local food bank, so I'm confused. Could you please help me? Do the militant gays typically wear frilly clothes? Are they prancing around? Do they always wear pink and lavender?

[bigmack]

This time of year there are lots of people in front of grocery stores, from the Salvation Army to the local food bank, so I'm confused. Could you please help me? Do the militant gays typically wear frilly clothes? Are they prancing around? Do they always wear pink and lavender?
Let me guess, cheap wine?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Let me guess, cheap wine?

Two Miller Lites, my friend, in two hours. The wings were excellent, too.

Was there a mistake in my post?

[bigmack]

Two Miller Lites, my friend, in two hours. The wings were excellent, too.

Was there a mistake in my post?
You're being obtuse. Salvation Army has a red bucket and a bell. Others have petitions with agendas. :sleeping:

[Jay Trotter]

You're being obtuse. Salvation Army has a red bucket and a bell. Others have petitions with agendas. :sleeping:

I've seen some of the "others" with bells too!

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=Jay Trotter]This is still going on?


Why couldn't you just take the box of chocolates and


So that I, instead, could give you the gift of frustration. Enjoy it. (And besides, you're easy and the price was right.) :p

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Not to worry, Box, unlike you, I do things in moderation!

If only that were true. It seems that you're always sipping foolishness from a bottomless glass.

Just to let you know, I did not encounter any militant gays in the bar. What should I look for in militant gays?

Einstein: If you didn't know what to look for, how do you know you didn't encounter any? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Are they always flaunting or should I look for more subtle clues?

Fly to the Big Apple and loiter in the Times Square area for a few hours. The education and experience might work wonders for you.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Fly to the Big Apple and loiter in the Times Square area for a few hours. The education and experience might work wonders for you.

Boxcar

I've never ventured into the big city.

[boxcar]

I've never ventured into the big city.

The city residents thank you, I'm sure.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

The city residents thank you, I'm sure.

Boxcar

In all seriousness, how many times have you been to NYC? Try being honest.

[boxcar]

In all seriousness, how many times have you been to NYC? Try being honest.

I was born there and lived there for many years.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

I was born there and lived there for many years.

Boxcar

What borough?