Obama=Liar & Puts american soldiers lives at risk

Damocles said:
They didn't know "better" when they argued the same arguments you are now about gays.

Seriously, you'd rather them hiding looking and quietly longing than simply be able to avoid a shower with a homosexual? Just bizarre.

They are already serving, and if they are longing for you, they still already are. The only thing that would change is you would be able to know and avoid certain situations that made you uncomfortable. While other ones, like fear of being in a fox hole with one, well you'd get over it, just like the soldiers did with black folks so very long ago.

One thing that would change for them almost immediately is the capacity for them to be in the military and hold a security clearance without fear of losing it to "don't ask don't tell" idiocy. Civilians don't have that inane requisite, because they don't lose their job if they are simply honest about it. You create a class of people who are in your military (you'll never get rid of them, because they are often just as patriotic as you are and have something to prove this is why 'don't ask don't tell' came about to begin with, it acknowledged the fact that they already serve) who are very much corruptible for fear of being "outted"...

But mostly I would order it because people who use the "ick" factor to measure the worth of a soldier are pretty much worthless.
Click to expand...

You keep harping on this supposed "ick factor", which doesn't exist in sufficient magnitude. Gays tend to be unstable people, like drug users.
 
Southern Man said:
You keep harping on this supposed "ick factor", which doesn't exist in sufficient magnitude. Gays tend to be unstable people, like drug users.
Click to expand...
Link to a study? Something not commissioned by "Christians against Gays".

The reality is, they are already there, serving well and secretly admiring your package while you shower. And the "ick" factor was represented by your attempt to "scare" me away using it, when you mentioned the shower. and it was mentioned only once in this thread, I haven't "harped" on this "supposed" ick factor, it was brought up once.

It takes special powers of deliberate ignorance to ignore that they are serving admirably as we type, and that integration went well in some of the best armies on the planet where they serve openly.

And lastly, if "unstable" were a factor in homosexuals, it would help to know who they are so you could again be careful with such people who you fear are "unstable", watch for the signs. I believe that you would miss it among other soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines because you were so suspicious of homosexuals that you ignored the signs in those who were not gay... but if that is where you "fear" lies, then you are only helped by knowing rather than having ticking time bombs of "unstableness" secretly among our best, ready to detach from stableness at any moment, and watching your package in the shower.
 
Damocles said:
Link to a study? Something not commissioned by "Christians against Gays".

The reality is, they are already there, serving well and secretly admiring your package while you shower. And the "ick" factor was represented by your attempt to "scare" me away using it, when you mentioned the shower. and it was mentioned only once in this thread, I haven't "harped" on this "supposed" ick factor, it was brought up once.

It takes special powers of deliberate ignorance to ignore that they are serving admirably as we type, and that integration went well in some of the best armies on the planet where they serve openly.

And lastly, if "unstable" were a factor in homosexuals, it would help to know who they are so you could again be careful with such people who you fear are "unstable", watch for the signs. I believe that you would miss it among other soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines because you were so suspicious of homosexuals that you ignored the signs in those who were not gay... but if that is where you "fear" lies, then you are only helped by knowing rather than having ticking time bombs of "unstableness" secretly among our best, ready to detach from stableness at any moment, and watching your package in the shower.
Click to expand...

The ability to commit to a single life-long relationship is a measurement of stability, and gays are not stable.

The evidence demonstrates incontrovertibly that the homosexual lifestyle is inconsistent with the proper raising of children. Homosexual relationships are characteristically unstable and are fundamentally incapable of providing children the security they need.

Homosexual Promiscuity

Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime, a lifestyle that is difficult for even "committed" homosexuals to break free of and which is not conducive to a healthy and wholesome atmosphere for the raising of children.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.29

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101--500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.30

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners.31

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."32

29 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp.

308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

30 Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

31 "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.

32 M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40--61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.
Click to expand...
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php
 
Southern Man said:
The ability to commit to a single life-long relationship is a measurement of stability, and gays are not stable.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php
Click to expand...
Promiscuity is not the same thing as mentally unstable. You are now drawing deep into the straw man well. Nor is this study not done by "Christians against Gays"... In fact it was paid for and conducted by just such a group.

Your argument is weak BS, the same group would have argued that Blacks and Whites shouldn't marry inter racially and would have come up with statistics to prove that such marriages don't last, therefore the homes were "unstable" and they shouldn't be allowed to adopt....

It's all BS science, and all excuses to perpetuate what they want rather than what is right.

If gays marry and stay married is not a measure of how good a soldier they would make, shoot if that was the measure heterosexuals could never adopt as 50% of all marriages end in divorce...

If you are married and stay married wouldn't be the measuring stick they would use for you, why should it be the one they use for gays? Divorce is even more common in the military, I guess it should be illegal for them to marry, join the military, adopt children... they are all "unstable" by this idiotic standard.
 
Southern Man said:
Four and five star generals don't know how to run the army better than you. Wow you think a lot of yourself.

Gay is a behavior, and if you behave gay then your gay. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Like I said moron.... the leadership of the military used the same bullshit with regards to blacks being allowed to serve.

Fine.... since you are so enlighted.... how do you 'behave gay'? Other than the actual physical act of homosexuality?

Again... you can CHOOSE to change your pigmentation... you do not CHOOSE to be gay.
 
In the words of Barry Goldwater, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

That sums up my position on the issue.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO..... what the fuck are you rambling about now? They tend to be 'unstable'???

you are friggin retarded.
Click to expand...

I think that determination can only be made by one well versed in physics. I mean if arousal in the shower causes instability due to load shift, gravity, etc. one would have to be abnormally well hung. :confused:
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO..... what the fuck are you rambling about now? They tend to be 'unstable'???

you are friggin retarded.
Click to expand...

A few years back they threatened to sue the promoters of the St. Patrick's day parade in NYC.

To make a long story short they were finally allowed to march, they came in G strings, dressed as condoms,skipping and holding hands, kissing and hugging, They made a complete mockery of the Parade.

I would say this is very unstable behavior?

I know not all are this way but if you feel the need to come out and announce you are gay to people who probably don't give a damn what your sexual preference is, than you just may be one of the above.
 
Damocles said:
Promiscuity is not the same thing as mentally unstable. You are now drawing deep into the straw man well. Nor is this study not done by "Christians against Gays"... In fact it was paid for and conducted by just such a group.

Your argument is weak BS, the same group would have argued that Blacks and Whites shouldn't marry inter racially and would have come up with statistics to prove that such marriages don't last, therefore the homes were "unstable" and they shouldn't be allowed to adopt....

It's all BS science, and all excuses to perpetuate what they want rather than what is right.

If gays marry and stay married is not a measure of how good a soldier they would make, shoot if that was the measure heterosexuals could never adopt as 50% of all marriages end in divorce...

If you are married and stay married wouldn't be the measuring stick they would use for you, why should it be the one they use for gays? Divorce is even more common in the military, I guess it should be illegal for them to marry, join the military, adopt children... they are all "unstable" by this idiotic standard.
Click to expand...

Most reasonable people would consider having porking over 1000 different men up the ass as an indication of unstable behavior. The source of this data was A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, not "Christians against Gays" as you suggest.
 
Southern Man said:
Most reasonable people would consider having porking over 1000 different men up the ass as an indication of unstable behavior. The source of this data was A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, not "Christians against Gays" as you suggest.
Click to expand...

Bell & Weinberg's studies refuted, not confirmed the theory that gays are unstable.

"In 1968, Dr. Bell and a colleague, Martin S. Weinberg, began surveying nearly 1,000 gays in San Francisco to assess their mental health and to try to determine what, if anything, in their lives had influenced their sexual orientation.

''It was the most ambitious study of male homosexuality ever attempted,'' said Martin B. Duberman, a history professor at the City University of New York who has written on gay issues. The resulting books, ''Homosexualities'' (1978) and ''Sexual Preference'' (1981), ''refuted a large number of previous studies that gay men were social misfits,'' Professor Duberman said.

The study found that homosexuals were as well adjusted and as satisfied in their relationships as heterosexuals. The researchers argued that there must be a biological basis for homosexual orientation, because they did not find that parental personalities or traumatic experiences played a role. That conclusion was greatly debated, with critics raising questions about methods.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/24/us/alan-p-bell-70-researcher-of-influences-on-homosexuality.htm
 
Jeff said:
A few years back they threatened to sue the promoters of the St. Patrick's day parade in NYC.

To make a long story short they were finally allowed to march, they came in G strings, dressed as condoms,skipping and holding hands, kissing and hugging, They made a complete mockery of the Parade.

I would say this is very unstable behavior?

I know not all are this way but if you feel the need to come out and announce you are gay to people who probably don't give a damn what your sexual preference is, than you just may be one of the above.
Click to expand...

There are extremists in every group. That does not translate to the group as a whole. There are some wackjob Christians who think blowing up abortion clinics is a good way to promote their cause. Does that mean all Christians are that way?

If they do not give a damn whether these men and women are gay, then you might have a point. The problem is, they DO give a damn.... hence the don't ask dont tell. Which means the gay members of the military must hide who they are for fear of dismissal should the fact that they happen to be gay be found out.

I don't give a shit if someone is gay or straight and as you suggested I don't really want someone throwing it in my face. That said, I also don't want them to be fearful of being who they are either. Neither is right in my opinion.
 
christiefan915 said:
Bell & Weinberg's studies refuted, not confirmed the theory that gays are unstable.

"In 1968, Dr. Bell and a colleague, Martin S. Weinberg, began surveying nearly 1,000 gays in San Francisco to assess their mental health and to try to determine what, if anything, in their lives had influenced their sexual orientation.

''It was the most ambitious study of male homosexuality ever attempted,'' said Martin B. Duberman, a history professor at the City University of New York who has written on gay issues. The resulting books, ''Homosexualities'' (1978) and ''Sexual Preference'' (1981), ''refuted a large number of previous studies that gay men were social misfits,'' Professor Duberman said.

The study found that homosexuals were as well adjusted and as satisfied in their relationships as heterosexuals. The researchers argued that there must be a biological basis for homosexual orientation, because they did not find that parental personalities or traumatic experiences played a role. That conclusion was greatly debated, with critics raising questions about methods.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/24/us/alan-p-bell-70-researcher-of-influences-on-homosexuality.htm
Click to expand...

FYI... when you change the color of the text to that blue... it makes it damn near impossible to read for those of us using the darker background.
 
Southern Man said:
Most reasonable people would consider having porking over 1000 different men up the ass as an indication of unstable behavior. The source of this data was A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, not "Christians against Gays" as you suggest.
Click to expand...

So you are thus suggesting that all heterosexuals are also unstable due to the actions of Wilt Chamberlain?
 
christiefan915 said:
Bell & Weinberg's studies refuted, not confirmed the theory that gays are unstable.

"In 1968, Dr. Bell and a colleague, Martin S. Weinberg, began surveying nearly 1,000 gays in San Francisco to assess their mental health and to try to determine what, if anything, in their lives had influenced their sexual orientation.

''It was the most ambitious study of male homosexuality ever attempted,'' said Martin B. Duberman, a history professor at the City University of New York who has written on gay issues. The resulting books, ''Homosexualities'' (1978) and ''Sexual Preference'' (1981), ''refuted a large number of previous studies that gay men were social misfits,'' Professor Duberman said.

The study found that homosexuals were as well adjusted and as satisfied in their relationships as heterosexuals. The researchers argued that there must be a biological basis for homosexual orientation, because they did not find that parental personalities or traumatic experiences played a role. That conclusion was greatly debated, with critics raising questions about methods.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/24/us/alan-p-bell-70-researcher-of-influences-on-homosexuality.htm
Click to expand...

LOL NY Times...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top