Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "

[Saniflush]

This is getting better than the pot debate.

Bout the time June gets here I am starting a homo pot thread.

[Kaos]

Reading Comprehension fail. Twisting and changing the point of the argument because you don't have something good to say fail.

I said, you must be reading from the wrong book.  The Koran and Bible differ dramtically.  The website cites and bases most of its arguments from the part of the Koran that differs completely from the Bible.  You know, the part about Muhammad.

Your first sentence, was found, verbatim, from that document/website.  Again, are you Muslim?  Reading from the wrong book?

READING COMPREHENSION DOUBLE FAIL. 

Koran and Bible differ, yep.   I didn't say they were word for word replicas.  In fact, I only referenced Old Testament -- which is all the stuff pre-Muhammad.   There are significant similarities between what is found in the Old Testament and what is found in the Koran.  Nothing to do with Muhammed. 

My first sentence was of my own creation.  I am not surprised at all to know that Muslims, who worship the same God and trace their lineage back to the same fathers that Christians do, would share the belief that homosexuality is an abomination.  I'm flattered that in my own writing I was able to duplicate (coincidentally) words that reflect the views contained in both our Holy Books. 

I know you are not this blind to religious history. 

[AWK]

READING COMPREHENSION DOUBLE FAIL. 

Koran and Bible differ, yep.   I didn't say they were word for word replicas.  In fact, I only referenced Old Testament -- which is all the stuff pre-Muhammad.   There are significant similarities between what is found in the Old Testament and what is found in the Koran.  Nothing to do with Muhammed. 

My first sentence was of my own creation.  I am not surprised at all to know that Muslims, who worship the same God and trace their lineage back to the same fathers that Christians do, would share the belief that homosexuality is an abomination.  I'm flattered that in my own writing I was able to duplicate (coincidentally) words that reflect the views contained in both our Holy Books.

I know you are not this blind to religious history. 

Ok, now that the garbage is out.

You can not honestly say that you are flattered that you use words that are used to persecute people and force people...against their free will...to obey under fear of penalty of death?

Also, words that brain wash people into strapping bombs to their chest and walk into a marketplace?

Kevin, that's just ridiculous. And I know you say it for dramatic affect, but the article I linked to you is literally a propaganda piece.  Current Propaganda, that I know you would roll your eyes to if you see it on TV or on the street corner.

That is the whole hypocrisy in this.  You get sick of homosexual agenda being slammed in your face on TV and what not, but at the same time you think you should be able to shout from the rooftops how gays are an abomination, homosexuality is a sin, one must follow the good book, etc...

[GarMan]

This is getting better than the pot debate.

Bout the time June gets here I am starting a homo pot thread.

Actually, I had more fun with the pot debate...  This one just pisses me off. 

So many in here seem to so be willing to force things on others without regard for their personal values.  It's like forcing a Muslim to sleep with pigs...  <In the same room... not sexual!  Don't get excited.>  It's like forcing a vegan into a steak house.  The extreme points on both sides of this are playing moral superiority, while they're both being narrow-minded. 

[AUTiger1]

This is getting better than the pot debate.

Bout the time June gets here I am starting a homo pot thread.

Should be an interesting read.

[AWK]

Actually, I had more fun with the pot debate...  This one just pisses me off. 

So many in here seem to so be willing to force things on others without regard for their personal values.  It's like forcing a Muslim to sleep with pigs...  <In the same room... not sexual!  Don't get excited.>  It's like forcing a vegan into a steak house.  The extreme points on both sides of this are playing moral superiority, while they're both being narrow-minded. 

Shit, I'm not being moral, never have been.  

[Vandy Vol]

Who are you to prevent these folks from joining the military?  People like you are willing to make some accommodations at the expense of others to allow homosexuals in the military . . .

Accommodations at the expense of others?  Once again, it sounds like there is an unrealistic expectation that a homosexual is going to break out into the routine from Flashdance and freak everyone the fuck out.  If you even bothered to read the post regarding the RAND report, then you'll see that homosexuals in the military have had no effect on military operations in other countries.

. . . but when it comes to those genetic conditions that "you" recognize as ailments primarily because of your own perceptions and prejudices, you invent conditions and limitations that would block their service.  Why couldn't a hemophiliac fly a drone over Iraq from a base in Arizona?  Why couldn't a leper work in the motor pool?  Even with sickle cell anemia, why couldn't we come up with a job for them in the military?  Why do you discriminate so much?

There's this little thing called war.  It can happen anywhere and anytime, even on our own soil.  Maybe your history books didn't teach you about the World Wars and Vietnam, but there are times when we need every enlisted soldier and draftable person to be able to actively participate in physical combat.  It's at those times that a soldier with a life-threatening disease or defect can not be depended upon to protect our country.  Let's not forget about the fact that, easy military job or not, you still have to go through basic training, recurring physical training, etc.  Those who are more prone to be injured or die during such physical activities aren't going to be of much worth to the military.

Even if you don't buy into this and still think we should have people with Downs Syndrome enlisted so that they can mop floors and walk the major's dog, you still have yet to even compare homosexuality in any way to the physical maladies of which you speak.  Other than complaining that it would be interrupting others' military service (which is proven not to be true by the RAND report), you have not set forth some sort of analogous reason as to why a homosexual would be unable to actually perform in the military as heterosexuals do.

[Kaos]

Ok, now that the garbage is out.

You can not honestly say that you are flattered that you use words that are used to persecute people and force people...against their free will...to obey under fear of penalty of death?

Also, words that brain wash people into strapping bombs to their chest and walk into a marketplace?

Kevin, that's just ridiculous. And I know you say it for dramatic affect, but the article I linked to you is literally a propaganda piece.  Current Propaganda, that I know you would roll your eyes to if you see it on TV or on the street corner.

That is the whole hypocrisy in this.  You get sick of homosexual agenda being slammed in your face on TV and what not, but at the same time you think you should be able to shout from the rooftops how gays are an abomination, homosexuality is a sin, one must follow the good book, etc...

I haven't shouted a damn thing -- except in response to someone else shouting.  There is no hypocrisy.  If I don't see it, I have no opinion to offer. But when it is debated, I have the right to express mine, no?  Apparently not.  There, my deluded friend, is the hypocrisy.  

I'm sure the article you linked is propoganda.  So what?  People who promote certain issues often take legitimate scriptural references to craft their own agendas.  Ever heard of Jim Jones?  David Koresh? Just because they used passages from the Bible to justify their actions, that does not mean the Bible is less relevant or defiled.  

The term abomination comes from the Bible and is used in reference to homosexuality specifically.  Leviticus, I think.  I am certainly not surprised at all that someone with extremist views, such as whoever apparently wrote that piece you linked (I didn't look at it, it wouldn't open) would use that same phraseology.  But just because it's used in that manner, it isn't rendered invalid on the whole.  

I am flattered that my opinion is reflected in the Bible and in the Koran, yes.  What others do with those words is not under my control.  

To attempt to link my viewpoint with terrorism because you find the same words in the Bible as you do an extremist flyer is utterly asinine.  It's absurd.  It's typical tactics, though.  Kudos for that.  You've picked up the same brush used by the crazies and are painting away.  

[Kaos]

Actually, I had more fun with the pot debate...  This one just pisses me off. 

So many in here seem to so be willing to force things on others without regard for their personal values.  It's like forcing a Muslim to sleep with pigs...  <In the same room... not sexual!  Don't get excited.>  It's like forcing a vegan into a steak house.  The extreme points on both sides of this are playing moral superiority, while they're both being narrow-minded. 

For the record, I'm not attempting to force anything on anyone.  I'm merely stating my personal opinion and asking that the opposite agenda not be forced on me.   I've issued no calls for mass genetic tampering or imprisonment. I've only stated my individual position in regard to a topic of debate.  I'd prefer not to have the discussion, actually, as I think those type of things are best left to the individual and behind closed doors. 

But here we are, anyway. 

[AWK]

I haven't shouted a damn thing -- except in response to someone else shouting.  There is no hypocrisy.  If I don't see it, I have no opinion to offer. But when it is debated, I have the right to express mine, no?  Apparently not.  There, my deluded friend, is the hypocrisy.

I'm sure the article you linked is propoganda.  So what?  People who promote certain issues often take legitimate scriptural references to craft their own agendas.  Ever heard of Jim Jones?  David Koresh? Just because they used passages from the Bible to justify their actions, that does not mean the Bible is less relevant or defiled. 

The term abomination comes from the Bible and is used in reference to homosexuality specifically.  Leviticus, I think.  I am certainly not surprised at all that someone with extremist views, such as whoever apparently wrote that piece you linked (I didn't look at it, it wouldn't open) would use that same phraseology.  But just because it's used in that manner, it isn't rendered invalid on the whole. 

I am flattered that my opinion is reflected in the Bible and in the Koran, yes.  What others do with those words is not under my control. 

To attempt to link my viewpoint with terrorism because you find the same words in the Bible as you do an extremist flyer is utterly asinine.  It's absurd.  It's typical tactics, though.  Kudos for that.  You've picked up the same brush used by the crazies and are painting away. 

No, No my friend.  I never said that.  You said that you hate the fact that it's all over your TV and etc...  Yet, I bet you don't say the same thing about a religious program or something of that nature. 

Also, I think all people should be able to do or say what they want unless it hurts someone.  At the same time, I feel that intelligent people know when to be quiet and when to speak if the situation is appropriate. 

I'm not linking your viewpoint to terrorism.  I'm linking your viewpoint to bullshit propaganda that is also used to promote violence and intolerance.   

[CCTAU]

You've picked up the same brush used by the crazies and are painting away.  

Andrew W. Vasquez?

Where I live, all of the painters are named Vasquez. Only the crazies never actually paint anything anymore. They hire Vasquez to do it. I think they use the term "plausible deniability".

[AWK]

For the record, I'm not attempting to force anything on anyone.  I'm merely stating my personal opinion and asking that the opposite agenda not be forced on me.   I've issued no calls for mass genetic tampering or imprisonment. I've only stated my individual position in regard to a topic of debate.  I'd prefer not to have the discussion, actually, as I think those type of things are best left to the individual and behind closed doors.

But here we are, anyway. 

Irony.

[Kaos]

homosexuals in the military have had no effect on military operations in other countries.

This isn't Europe, Mr. Obama.

There's this little thing called war.  It can happen anywhere and anytime, even on our own soil.  Maybe your history books didn't teach you about the World Wars and Vietnam, but there are times when we need every enlisted soldier and draftable person to be able to actively participate in physical combat.  It's at those times that a soldier with a life-threatening disease or defect can not be depended upon to protect our country.  Let's not forget about the fact that, easy military job or not, you still have to go through basic training, recurring physical training, etc.  Those who are more prone to be injured or die during such physical activities aren't going to be of much worth to the military.

Even if you don't buy into this and still think we should have people with Downs Syndrome enlisted so that they can mop floors and walk the major's dog, you still have yet to even compare homosexuality in any way to the physical maladies of which you speak.  Other than complaining that it would be interrupting others' military service (which is proven not to be true by the RAND report), you have not set forth some sort of analogous reason as to why a homosexual would be unable to actually perform in the military as heterosexuals do.

And AGAIN for the umpteenth time, you completely fucking WHIFF on the point.  

Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military.  They obviously can and do.  The issue is whether they should be open with it.  The military would prefer they not be in the interest of safety, morale and efficiency.

I'll take their word for it over Shrieker Pelosi's.  

[Kaos]

I'm not linking your viewpoint to terrorism.  I'm linking your viewpoint to bullshit propaganda that is also used to promote violence and intolerance.   

The words I used came from the Bible.  And the Koran.  And probably the Torah, although I'd have to review it.

All huge proponents of "bullshit propaganda, used to promote violence and intolerance."

[CCTAU]

And AGAIN for the umpteenth time, you completely fucking WHIFF on the point.  

Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military.  They obviously can and do.  The issue is whether they should be open with it.  The military would prefer they not be in the interest of safety, morale and efficiency.

BINGO!

But as with all things gay, it's all or nothing. DADT has worked fine. The number of soldiers being tossed out for tossing is not at such a number that it is epidemic.

[Kaos]

BINGO!

But as with all things gay, it's all or nothing. DADT has worked fine. The number of soldiers being tossed out for tossing is not at such a number that it is epidemic.

Careful, there, hoss.  Chizad is likely to throw his cocoa-loco cappuchino mocha at you and call you narrow minded. 

Common sense not allowed here! 

 

[AWK]

The words I used came from the Bible.  And the Koran.  And probably the Torah, although I'd have to review it.

All huge proponents of "bullshit propaganda, used to promote violence and intolerance."

Exactly, the bible, in your own words is a proponent of bullshit propaganda, used to promote violence or intolerance.

Kinda the basis for your argument in reference to Christianity and Christian views.

[Kaos]

Exactly, the bible, in your own words is a proponent of bullshit propaganda, used to promote violence or intolerance.

Kinda the basis for your argument in reference to Christianity and Christian views.

I don't think that it is such and I never said that. 

It can be used by those who wish to promote those things, but "intolerance" is such a broad word.  It's my opinion that there are some things we, as Christians, are SUPPOSED to be intolerant of. 

You can take any work, from Shakespeare to the script for Mamma Mia and select certain passages to create a manifesto for violence. 

[AUChizad]

Apparently. 

His entire attempt at "argument" was nothing more than a series of shreikingly ignorant attempts at attack.  Zero logical connections, just a pile of frothing excrement. 

Fail.

[Kaos]

All extraneous bullshit aside...

This topic really boils down to gays asking for the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy to be repealed and certain members of Congress embracing that idea.  

When that request comes from the people in charge of the military, then it should matter.  I'll admit, I've never served in the military and it isn't my place to tell those who have and do how their operation should be run.  

That said, there are a few others who also have no place making such demands:

1) Some random gay blogger with an axe to grind who makes baseless statements and fraudulent accusations (the genesis of this thread).

2) A lawyer who knows nothing but the blanket of free speech -- which frankly, shouldn't apply to the military for obvious reasons.  

3) A variety of other people who've responded in this thread with nothing but their own personal agendas and viewpoints, none of which have any basis in or knowledge of military function.

4) Members of Congress who aren't serving in the military, many who have never served, and some whose sole purpose is making headlines and pacifying a segment of the electorate.  


And now, this discussion is closed.