Here's a hypothetical question: if don't ask don't tell was overturned but, gays, lesbians & bisexuals would have to be segregated for some given reason. Would you be fine with that?
general kerr, i'd be HAPPY to answer that question...for the SAME reason that an office has seperate bathrooms for men and women. For the SAME reason you wouldn't want your daughter living in an all-male fraternity. For the SAME reason you wouldn't want your daughter in the military to have to shower with MEN....it's called SEX. And when a man is attracted to OTHER MEN, this creates a problem with good order and discipline. What part of this don't you understand???
@daveatx , Then why doesn't it create a problem in the private sector, where gays and straights have to work together and use the same facilities? And why don't gyms have separate facilities for homosexuals also? Because adult PROFESSIONALS posses a little thing called discipline, which is supposed to be what the military is all about.
What part of being a professional means that you control your self and do your job, regardless of your sexual orientation, don't YOU understand?
why didn't the Republican candidates ask Anderson Cooper, moderator of the debate, about his experience of DON'T ASK DON'T TELL. Anderson Cooper had to hide his homosexuality when covering up close the guys in the military , during the Iraq war... Anderson Cooper I assume followed a policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
you think that just because someone's gay, not only have they had anal sex, they're also promiscuous. that's why you are misinformed and need to make some gay friends (or at least admit that one in ten to thirty of your friends are gay.
I just happened across this video after reviewing the Youtube debate. After the candidates responded to you, you stated that you felt they did not answer your question. Two 100% did, and one seemed to give a strong opinion, although it was a flip flop from a previous held view. Consider yourself lucky that you got answers that you can count on.
You're right. The answer is "unit cohesion" will be disrupted, which means, No, the soldiers are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.
you know, that's what they said about the desegregation of the Army..."unit cohesion"...
so then if Keith was prez would he overturn the ban on gay men cant give blood? if not, then why can they serve in the military? doesnt the military go out in the middle of nowhere and in times of need of blood need to use who they have on the spot? then what? call for a redcross rush delievery? I mean I dont even see the ignorance. its STUPID
OMG I'm in the Army and I'm so fucking gay! I just want to tell EVERYONE. When I'm in the showers with the 'boys' I just want to fall on the floor and have everyone of their huge cocks rip my ass appart! And then bury me in a cum bath and then I will eat all of the cum off the floor and eat out all of their dirty ass holes! Yes!
God I wish I could just do it, but don't ask don't tell is BULLSHIT! Fuck me!
Lmao well said, keep taking advantage of the dont ask dont tell policy so u can spy on all the hot boys in the shower. :) Just think if u get a promotion u can have all those young men under ur command and willing to obey ur every wish.
Funny but they were quite a few "female" military who didn't mind showering with me when I was in the Armed Forces...and I'm as straight as they come. lol
I guess you would have been the first person to answer Jesus's call as "who is without sin...to throw the first stone." Think moron, before you write stupidity...He's watching you.
Dear Loser...the question was asked to Hillary Clinton during the debate and she answered truthfully in stating that because of the strong Republican opposition who had control of the Congress, President Clinton had no other choice but to at least propose the DADT law, which she said was at least a first step in the right direction. Republicans has you know don't give a damn about Human Rights or tolerance or equality.
Ozzy, I'm letting you have the last word because I'm done wasting my time here with you. I just want to make it clear that my silence should not be construed in any way as a concession, and I stand by the things I have said.
Outstanding. I think it's also important to note that the only reason the gay agenda is perceived as going mainstream is because the MAJORITY have been silent too long. John said it best. Don't construe the silence of the majority as in anyway acceptance.
Make no mistake. I will not be silent. I'm just taking my advocacy away from the numbskulls of Youtube to the numbskulls that might be able to do something about it.
First is was "BLACKS in the military would cause dissention" ... then it was "WOMEN" and now it's the "GAYS." How immature can a nation be?
Take a stroll in the Arlington~Virginia or the Normandy~France cemetaries. Look upon the hundred of thousands of white crosses & stars of David. Try to imagine how many of these brave and valiant soldiers who gave their lives from their country were in fact "gays."
It's time to rescind "Don't Ask...Don't Tell" and join the rest of the mature nations.
Get a life moron. Or better learn how to read and grab a book to educate yourself.
By the way moronh, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. Pedo means children. Most child molesters are heterosexuals not gays...see coach, teacher, parental-incest etc.,
Yes, i've considered serving, but i decided that i did not want to spend that much time away from my family- if i was drafted i would go w/o question. And yes, i was in support of having a draft to go to iraq, and sorry bud- but i finished sunday school a looooooong time ago.
And i think the problem is that GAYS aren't professional enough to serve with normal soldiers. I'd be very offended if i was sent into battle with a hip-swinging lisping man who acts like a woman. Or is that stereotype there because it ISN'T true?
You seem like some naive teen with little to no idea of the world outside your Sunday school. So I suspect you have never served. Are you planning on serving? "...I'd be very offended if i was sent into battle with a hip-swinging lisping man who acts like a woman." Larry Craig, Ted Haggard with their hands on their waist, stomping the ground.
This is what your words make me think of. It's ok if you are gay. Fighting it with overcompensation is quite telling. Just relax, get over preachers and come out. We are here for you.
You obviously missed my point. My point was that a lot of gay people (not most, i didn't say most) make it their #1 priority to let people know that they're gay.The stereotypical "flaming queer" as i described in a quote above, does not belong on the battlefield. So to say "gays are ok to be in the military" is too broad for me. As long as they keep it quiet and they don't make everything ABOUT them being gay, then whatever.
"You obviously missed my point. My point was that a lot of gay people (not most, i didn't say most)..." And i think the problem is that GAYS aren't professional enough to serve with normal soldiers. I may have missed your point because "...GAYS..." leaves interpretation open to mean ALL GAYS. ALSO. Just like hetero sexual men aren't allowed to flaunt their sexuality on the battle field a homosexual man would not be allowed. Just like any professional in time of war
Ok, good, someone else is here, I can really leave. Please Dustilee, just don't respond to any of my previous comments, and I won't respond to any of yours. I get an email every time you do, and I can' resist but come back. If I stop getting emails, I can really stay away, lol.
What constitutes "the people" 51%?, one? If there existed 1000 different expressions of faith, should all faiths be afforded the time before the game to express? If yes , do ya think there would be time for the game?
Yeah, but the problem is, there are regions of the country where that's not a problem. Ever been to Utah? Fill a stadium with people and 90 plus percent will be Mormon. Not a lot of Buddhists there.
Ozzyrock2. , I think we have a core agreement. Something to the effect that the ACLU and Church can be ridiculous. Also. If 1000 expressions of faith were expressed there would be about 5 sec. per expression at best. . So maybe there would not be enough time to express all faiths. Maybe a solution would be to just enjoy the game and let people pray in private like Jesus held.
the ACLU is ridiculous. The church? jesus only told us not to pray to APPEAR righteous, he never said not to pray in public. And as christians we are called to try to help everyone we love find faith in God.
No, the ACLU won't allow it. In most school districts, the Valedictorian's speech has to be reviewed by the district before it's given so as to eliminate anything that would be offensive. So much for free speech.
Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?
People who don't vote presumably don't care, one way or another. Therefore, we can say that any one who gets elected has the effective support of all the people who didn't vote for the other guy
It MATTERS because you have the most powerful person in the world elected by 23% of those that are governed. I guess as long as it's YOUR guy, it's okay.
While I didn't vote for Bush, I don't care that he won in 2004 with, what, twenty six percent of registered voters. By your logic, you'd need 90% of the popular to get a majority.
This is a stupid squabble that has nothing to do with anything, though. So I'm going to just ignore it from now on.
John, you'll see I only check in like once a day at this point. If you go to your account options, you can prevent getting any more emails from posts. I was getting about 30 a day.
Can we seriously agree to end this, and not go back and respond anymore? I've spent all day on this. We've written over 50 pages of comments, and about 10 on the other one.
Right, it just happens that we are the only two people commenting tonight, yet my new comments have thumbs down next to them. I don't believe a word you say.
I really need to go. I'll let this end on you letting yourself degenerate into accusing me of oppressing women. I'm not reading anything else you write because you're no longer worthy of it. I'll be busy living my gay life. But really, just remember me every time a new gay rights law passes.
i didn't say i blogged *for any site... i said i had blogs on two popular sites. i don't want the enire world in my business, unlike you. but lets just say there is a space and a book where you can find them
Hahahaha, I knew it. More misrepresentations. You clearly wrote that you blogged to make me think some site hired you to blog for them, and here you only blog on the two most common social networking sites in the world, where anyone can blog.
Please show me where I said I was hired! I did no such thing. All i said is that i published/posted my research on my blogs. I didn't say where. You assumed.
There was no ommission. There was no lying. You are worse than any woman I know at this point. Its not my fault you are trying to make things up at this point to make yourself look better. You call names, you belittle, you are just another abusive man who will do or say anything to and about a woman to get what he wants.
Its not a spin, you are speaking the same way as every abusive person I have ever encountered. I'm gonna see your partner on tv someday saying, "But I looooove him... waaa waaa waa".
Wow, this is funny...I googled your sn and found that you're on some dating sites...can't imagine why someone like you would need to do that. Hahaha, this probably isn't you, but someone is using this screen name on a erotic stories site...bisexual woman. That would be priceless if it was you.
As an Army soldier, i dont recall ever documenting myself as a heterosexual or homosexual. It is irrelevant what sexual preference a person has when bullets are flying all around. A gay person can fight just as well as a hetero. I find it disrespectful for heterosexual men and women in the Army to flaunt their sexual encounters just as much as homosexual men and women to flaunt theirs. Sex and war do not mix. This should not be an issue
well said, and it is the issue. People are forgetting the main concept: Don't ask... And that means its up to the rest not to tell. No one cares unless they face to face with it.
Dustilee, you like to talk about "dominant" purposes...how many army commanders have been discharged for "asking"? How many gays discharged for "telling?" What's the main concept again?
No, the main concept is not "don't ask"-- that's just a suggestion for commanders that they can decide whether they want to follow or not. The main concept is "don't tell"-- to get rid of as many gays as possible with a slip of the tongue.
They would be asking about any troop who made a video question for the youtube debate. That's why some of them used placards in front of their faces to ask why DADT is necessary. If they even took part in the political process, they would face discharge. My only regret is that CNN picked this question instead of a current military member's who can't even take part in the debate openly.
My beef with this question was simply that this man lied about his service and affiliation. He was an "honorary" general. He never fufilled the duties of a real general. He's also a member of the Clinton camp... This was a Republican debate. His question should have been saved for a general election debate.
Sure, but turn it on its head, and the ONE PERSON that objects to a religious display and "just doesn't like those religious people" gets to have something changed for the majority. That's also wrong.
I'm not sure what thread this is part of, because youtube made it a separate comment on my screen, but if you are referring to the "War on Christmas" type battles, I think those battles are facially ridiculous, HOWEVER, not so much when the religious leak into government goes beyond manger scenes and displays of the Ten Commandments and a prayer before a high school football game, and affects social policy like marriage and DADT.
Our country was founded on certain religous beliefs. Yet, we succesfully allowed people to practice their freedom of and from it for over 100 years while still being able to hold true to our roots. If you don't like the way our country was set up, get out and go somewhere you agree with more.
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli-- an official treaty passed by Congress in the late 1700s: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." We're not a Christian nation. If you don't like it, get out and go somewhere you agree with more.
I'm not? And how am I preventing this? I don't even go to church as it is. Tell me how I personally am standing in your way of practicing religion. You can practice however you wish, whether I think you're doing it wrong or not.
"You" as in people of your obvious views on gay marriage who are currently in the majority in this country. You stated that the country has allowed religions to practice freely while still being founded on certain religious principles. I content that the country does not allow all religions to practice freely because it prohibits gay marriage. So, your statement was false.
Voting is here so the majority can rule while respecting the rights of the minority to vote and say their piece. It doesn't give the minority the right to impose on the majority. Thats a dictatorship.
The minority is not "imposing" on the majority by asking to have the same rights as the majority, which gays don't have right now. And, the minority is not just protected by being able to say its "piece," there are supposedly protections in place to keep the majority from enacting certain policies to impose on the minority, which is what is going on here, make no mistake.
Its completely different. To say otherwise is complete bull. You can want to change nature all you want, no law is going to make putting something in your rectum healthy... I'm sorry.
Not according to the Supreme Court in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374. There was a statute that said if a man owed child support he could not get married until it was paid off. The Court said that was unconstitutional because marriage is a fundamental right. You should brush up on your U.S. history. You lose this one.
no, a law that is good for the goose is good for the gander. there are not two seperate sets of laws. we all vote. some bills pass and some fail. thats how it works. and yes, by shoving this liberal agenda crap down all our throats 24/7, you are imposing...
There are restrictions placed on a lot of things. A 16yr old can get a driver's license. a 15 1/2yr old can't. Does 6 mos make that much difference? An 18yr old can enlist in the military, but can't buy beer. Have his rights been violated?
Have you inventoried all religions of the world? And made a decision as to which ones make YOUR cut? One definition of religion is something to the effect : anything a group of people believe in.
Wow. That's broad. So the Democratic Party is a religion now? Toyota Motor Corporation is a religion?
You see the problem here? It's never JUST about gay rights. Everyone that thinks like you have this bizarre world view regarding EVERYTHING. "you're not Catholic. You're just a bunch of people that believe the same thing". The mind that alters, alters all.
This lends support to the notion of leaving public display of faith out of the ballgame. Because, if we had to be fair and let all religions be expressed before the game, there wouldn't be enough time for the game
You know what's funny. I don't give a SHIT about the religions of the world-only the ones that are practicing in my country. Why? Because we're discussing laws, rights, and social policy in MY country. Once again, if the U.S. is SO bad, try having this discussion in IRAN.
Actually, that's not true. There are a number of religions that WILL marry people. I don't think the government should endorse it. On the other hand, you WANT the government to legitimize your marriage.
The government of India wasn't founded on Hinduism. Funny thing is, there are 700 million HINDUS there. I think it's safe to say they are a HINDU nation. Now, I'm going to move to India, and bitch and complain that the Hindu nation won't change to suit me.
It's interesting the choice of words in Article 11. It's never been in a treaty BEFORE and not again SINCE. Is it possible the words were included because the other country was Muslim and were wary of engaging in a treatywith those evil Christians?
We just had another battle on the WAR on CHRISTMAS in Fort Collins, CO. Someone complained about the CHRISTMAS lights. There was no nativity, no tree, just LIGHTS. Like it or not John, marriage AND the display of the Ten Commandments are both the result of social policy. The ACLU, with its roots in Communism, has been trying to destroy all religious displays.
I'm really done this time. Really, Really (unless I see something that I MUST respond to). I will continue to try to read here, but I'm not posting anymore because it's interfering with my work. Good luck to everyone, and may you all see the light.
Funny, my marriage, ordained by God, not the government, is recognized around the world and multiple religions, not just "one book" as you call it. The Bible? The Koran? The Torah? The same can't be said about Elton John OR Melissa Etheridge. Sorry.
The reason the UK recognizes it, however, isn't because of God. It's *because* you signed a marriage contract which has been recognized as valid by the US government. If you'd had the same ceremony in a church without the contract, your marriage would not be recognized anywhere.
So, since the government *is* involved in it's recognition, can you advance the reason government should discriminate against gay couples?
My argument remains that the government needs to get OUT of the marriage business. I don't want to go to the gov't for permission to get married, and no one else should.
What about bi-sexual people? Should a guy who's bi-sexual be able to marry two people?
1. I'm fine with government only recognizing "civil unions", and leaving marriages up to churches. Provided whatever they do recognize isn't discriminatory.
2. Bisexuals are attracted to both genders; that doesn't mean they're in relationships with both genders. If you like blondes and redheads, do you need to marry one of each?
3 Polygamy is an entirely different issue, anyway.
I disagree. There are multiple marriages I don't agree with, but using the "we're consenting adults" argument, you couldn't deny them.
1. A woman is 50 years old and past the age of child-bearing. A man is 52 years old. They want to marry. However, they're brother and sister. Should they be denied a marriage license? Don't invoke "incest" here. Two consenting adults should be able to do what they want.
Wow. You truly are an open minded person John. Be sure you announce to the world that in addition to gay marriage, you'll accept polygamy, and incest (brother to brother, brother to sister, or parent to child) since gender is irrelvant. Great. The best thing? This progressive movement is "inevitable".
I would say it would be inevitable, except there are not enough people fighting for it at this point. Not to mention, it would be hard to work out allowing incestuous couples who cannot bear children to marry while restricting others. But, in theory, if it doesn't harm anyone, it should be allowed.
Regarding 1 and 2: I lean towards allowing them, partially. The first is a blatantly unlikely hypothetical, on the other hand, and the risk of genetic defects *is* a concern. As for the second: if all three consent to all marriages (the two women must agree to each other, after all), I'm fine with it.
You missed the part where the woman was PAST the age of having children, so genetic defects aren't an issue. However, since incest is based on RELIGIOUS doctrine, not law, you have to support it as well. Be sure and wave your "I'm for polygamy, incest, and gay marriage" sign at the next protest.
I'm not going to argue about how to fairly implement incest and polygamy laws. It is sufficient that I've stated my theoretical non-objection to the practices if they are not harmful to third parties, which, LET ME BE SURE NOT TO LEAVE OUT, is a huge assumption at this point, unlike with gay marriage. So, no, I will not wave polygamy and incest flags. We don't have enough information about those at this time, or enough interest in legalizing them.
Point is, there are other questions and concerns with incest and polygamy than there are with gay marriage. You have to consider fairness vis a vis younger incestuous couples if you allow older ones. Not to say it couldn't be done, but it's an extra concern that must be considered.
Incest taboo comes from an inborn, psycological adversion, not the Bible.
And I'm not *for* incest. I simply don't have a reason to oppose the right of those who wish to engage in it, other than the power dynamics of parent-child incest. Much like smoking: against smoking, for the right to smoke.
An INBORN PSYCHOLOGICAL adversion. RIIIIGGGHT. Adversion isn't a word and if you're brought up being told that you're going to marry your sister, you won't have any "aversion" to it. There are arranged marriages in many cultures (although incest isn't involved) and there's no "aversion" to it.
This is a fun one. FOR the right to smoke, but yet I support enacting BANS all over the country preventing people from exercising their right. No hypocrisy there!
I'm well aware of that. But you called me a hypocrite for something that I'm not guilty of.
My point is this: even if you don't believe in gay marriage, you can still support the rights of those who *do* believe in them, to have one. Their marriage neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket. The only argument I've seen you give against gay marriage is, well, they can still get some of the rights (not all, as your tax comment admits) without being married. And that's not an argument at all.
How is it your buisness? This is the question you refuse to answer. Because, of course, it has no answer. How does it in any way make your life poorer knowing that Jim and Edgar from down the block have made it legal? It means the world to them: Shared name, shared taxes, shared custody on their adoptive son, who (if we say this is Delaware) had previously been legally Jim's kid. Why does their happiness threaten yours?
You and everyone that thinks like you MAKE it my business. I'm not changing the way I vote so that a group of people that indulge in a dangerous lifestyle can feel better about themselves. If anything, it would be ILLEGAL for gays to adopt as well! It's bad enough without them bringing the innocent into their business.
Also, understand that there are actions people take that will effect SOCIETY as a whole, if not the individual. I may never choose to use illegal drugs and will continue to vote against legalization because I think they're bad for society. It doesn't effect me in the least.
2. A bisexual is in a relationship with both genders and doesn't want to choose. They're all consenting adults. We're not debating the "morality" of polygamy. That's not for you to decide. Can the government deny marriage licenses to three people who are of legal age and consenting adults? Nope, they can't. That's discrimination!
Psychological studies show that groups of differing numbers actually have different characteristics, which wouldn't matter except for effects on children. I don't know the effects of polygamy on children, but assuming there was no difference, polygamy should be legal as well. However, I also qualify that by saying that those families shouldn't be able to get any more financial advantages than two-person marriages.
3. Opposing gays marriage licenses isn't discriminatory. Whatever "rights" they talk about being denied are easily remedied under existing law.
Tax breaks? Many married people file separately. Adoption? Gays can adopt. Property ownership or beneficiary designation? Gays can own property together and you can make anyone your beneficiary.
This is about "recognition" and forcing others to recognize a relationship we don't agree with-not about rights or discrimination.
And many file jointly. You *are* denying gay couples that option; don't pretend that you're not.
Adoption: in many states, only one partner is the legal guardian, and if one gives birth, the other is a legal stranger.
"This is about recognition." Does this mean, if I don't like the idea of a Jew marrying a Christian, I can have their marriage declared null? I don't agree with it; don't make me recognize it!
So the will of the majority can trample on the rights of the minority for no reason whatsoever.
Interesting. So if the majority in a state didn't believe in the rights of black men to marry white women, for Chinese children to go to Western schools, to for Jews to earn the same as Christians, that would also be fine? No? Why not? Where is the line drawn, Ozzy?
Short answer: med schools want the most qualified doctors, because less qualified doctors leads to more malpractice, and dead patients. The dead patients would be victims of unqualified doctors.
I didn't not read it; I didn't know what it was responding to. Which, of course, is because it's nonsense.
There is no victim; the laws are applied equally *within each state*, and are set by representatives of the people of each state.
Citizens benefit from the services their taxes buy. If a citizen of RI feels that the taxes are to high, he's free to go to CT, just as someone from CT who feels his school is bad can move to RI.
If one group of people are taxed at 25% of their income and another group is taxed at 40% of their income, that's fair? There aren't any victims? Why should ONE group pay more for the "services taxes" buy than another group? Oh, because its the law.
That's an idiotic strawman. Clearly, few ten year olds are physically or emotionally mature enough to drive or (arguably; Europe may disagree) drink, while most thirty year olds are. Society is restricting their access, because a fifteen year old is more likely to cause an accident; a twenty year old is more likely to get alcohol poisoning. We can quibble over the ages, but there is a clear rationale for the laws. Again: what does the gay-marriage ban do?
i guess that it better to take it like a secret especial if you are a general
Danieldx22 1 year ago
What a moron. Other soldiers knowing that other soldiers are gay is completely negative to their missions.
Criticalman 2 years ago
Question: umm... Is this fake??
ACEGrahamAker 2 years ago
That is a dumb question. What is professional about serving with gays?
knowb4 2 years ago
Here's a hypothetical question: if don't ask don't tell was overturned but, gays, lesbians & bisexuals would have to be segregated for some given reason. Would you be fine with that?
phildaguy 3 years ago
general kerr, i'd be HAPPY to answer that question...for the SAME reason that an office has seperate bathrooms for men and women. For the SAME reason you wouldn't want your daughter living in an all-male fraternity. For the SAME reason you wouldn't want your daughter in the military to have to shower with MEN....it's called SEX. And when a man is attracted to OTHER MEN, this creates a problem with good order and discipline. What part of this don't you understand???
daveatx 3 years ago
@daveatx , Then why doesn't it create a problem in the private sector, where gays and straights have to work together and use the same facilities? And why don't gyms have separate facilities for homosexuals also? Because adult PROFESSIONALS posses a little thing called discipline, which is supposed to be what the military is all about.
What part of being a professional means that you control your self and do your job, regardless of your sexual orientation, don't YOU understand?
unclemevin 1 year ago
The only problem here is professionalism, which I guess the United States Services doesn't have too much off. Immature military.
Levesque999 3 years ago
ha ha ha
loytime 3 years ago
you dunb arse fucking americans.
charlie58cowan 3 years ago
He is NOT a general just a stooge propped up by the HOMO establishment to make you believe that the military is overrun with sodomites.
Who cares that people are gay and like to take it in the ass, it's when they try to falsely normalize that makes it so offensive.
globalgringo 4 years ago
why didn't the Republican candidates ask Anderson Cooper, moderator of the debate, about his experience of DON'T ASK DON'T TELL. Anderson Cooper had to hide his homosexuality when covering up close the guys in the military , during the Iraq war... Anderson Cooper I assume followed a policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
jeffbrown8 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Can you believe this practitioner of sodomy was in the military?
Well, he was in the National Guard part time and never served in combat.
This is what the Democrat scum digs up to represent sodomites in the military.
globalgringo 4 years ago
Nothing like closed-minded, ill-willed, hateful, stupid, conservitives, saying stupid stuff.
ALF8892 4 years ago
How do you know I am conservative, maybe I just believe that the military is no place for sodomites!
Unless they are servicing the recent leadership in the military.
globalgringo 4 years ago
you do realize there's a difference between gays and "sodomites," right?
Bsteveisme 3 years ago
Yes - "gays" covers men, women and the whatevers.
Sodomites refers specifically to the gay men.
Sure Lesbos are strapping it on but it's not the same thing.
globalgringo 3 years ago
i'm gay and have never had gay sex or a gay relationship. hence, i am not a sodomite. you have no idea what homosexuality is, do you?
Bsteveisme 3 years ago
you think that just because someone's gay, not only have they had anal sex, they're also promiscuous. that's why you are misinformed and need to make some gay friends (or at least admit that one in ten to thirty of your friends are gay.
Bsteveisme 3 years ago
I just happened across this video after reviewing the Youtube debate. After the candidates responded to you, you stated that you felt they did not answer your question. Two 100% did, and one seemed to give a strong opinion, although it was a flip flop from a previous held view. Consider yourself lucky that you got answers that you can count on.
Cozzmos 4 years ago
You're right. The answer is "unit cohesion" will be disrupted, which means, No, the soldiers are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.
you know, that's what they said about the desegregation of the Army..."unit cohesion"...
aznjokeryou 3 years ago
that's also what they said with women in the military
Bsteveisme 3 years ago
so then if Keith was prez would he overturn the ban on gay men cant give blood? if not, then why can they serve in the military? doesnt the military go out in the middle of nowhere and in times of need of blood need to use who they have on the spot? then what? call for a redcross rush delievery? I mean I dont even see the ignorance. its STUPID
eastsackevster 4 years ago
OMG I'm in the Army and I'm so fucking gay! I just want to tell EVERYONE. When I'm in the showers with the 'boys' I just want to fall on the floor and have everyone of their huge cocks rip my ass appart! And then bury me in a cum bath and then I will eat all of the cum off the floor and eat out all of their dirty ass holes! Yes!
God I wish I could just do it, but don't ask don't tell is BULLSHIT! Fuck me!
watcher21 4 years ago
Lmao well said, keep taking advantage of the dont ask dont tell policy so u can spy on all the hot boys in the shower. :) Just think if u get a promotion u can have all those young men under ur command and willing to obey ur every wish.
TheBritishWatcher 4 years ago
rainbow worry-er Brigadier General gerbil butt, reporting for duty!
mizko1 4 years ago
the fear of being poked in the rear can some what alter your trust of fellow comrades i think.
DemiseRX 4 years ago
Right. Because gay men are going to join the military in order to rape other members of their company.
nedlum 4 years ago
Funny but they were quite a few "female" military who didn't mind showering with me when I was in the Armed Forces...and I'm as straight as they come. lol
librophile 4 years ago
AWESOME. I think it should be that way, as I've stated here a couple of times.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
I guess you would have been the first person to answer Jesus's call as "who is without sin...to throw the first stone." Think moron, before you write stupidity...He's watching you.
librophile 4 years ago
Dear Loser...the question was asked to Hillary Clinton during the debate and she answered truthfully in stating that because of the strong Republican opposition who had control of the Congress, President Clinton had no other choice but to at least propose the DADT law, which she said was at least a first step in the right direction. Republicans has you know don't give a damn about Human Rights or tolerance or equality.
librophile 4 years ago
You like to tell others to eductae themselves yet you are woefully ill-informed on this topic.
1) Clinton had veto power.
2) Clinton PUSHED for DADT and lobbied both Republicans and Democrats to vote in favor of it.
3) At that time, Democrats still held the majority in Congress.
liberallosers 4 years ago
Hillary cares about "tolerance" and "equality" right?
That's why she's on the record as being against Gay Marriage.
liberallosers 4 years ago
Ozzy, I'm letting you have the last word because I'm done wasting my time here with you. I just want to make it clear that my silence should not be construed in any way as a concession, and I stand by the things I have said.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Outstanding. I think it's also important to note that the only reason the gay agenda is perceived as going mainstream is because the MAJORITY have been silent too long. John said it best. Don't construe the silence of the majority as in anyway acceptance.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Make no mistake. I will not be silent. I'm just taking my advocacy away from the numbskulls of Youtube to the numbskulls that might be able to do something about it.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
I'm doing the same.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
He HAD to be a Brigadier General. If he attained the rank of "Rear Admiral" he would never have heard the end of the jokes.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Very mature. Must have taken you all week to come up with that one.
nedlum 4 years ago
Actually, it occurred to me the moment I saw the title of this video.
It amuses me.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
First is was "BLACKS in the military would cause dissention" ... then it was "WOMEN" and now it's the "GAYS." How immature can a nation be?
Take a stroll in the Arlington~Virginia or the Normandy~France cemetaries. Look upon the hundred of thousands of white crosses & stars of David. Try to imagine how many of these brave and valiant soldiers who gave their lives from their country were in fact "gays."
It's time to rescind "Don't Ask...Don't Tell" and join the rest of the mature nations.
librophile 4 years ago
LIBRO-PHILE.
Sounds like PEDO-PHILE. Careful there.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Libro = Book ... Phile (Philos) = Love
Get a life moron. Or better learn how to read and grab a book to educate yourself.
By the way moronh, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. Pedo means children. Most child molesters are heterosexuals not gays...see coach, teacher, parental-incest etc.,
librophile 4 years ago
That was a joke MORON. Incidentally, why are so do so many pedophiles target their own gender? It's probably not a gay thing.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Moron? I went to college and have a Master's degree. I guess you have a GED?
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Yes, i've considered serving, but i decided that i did not want to spend that much time away from my family- if i was drafted i would go w/o question. And yes, i was in support of having a draft to go to iraq, and sorry bud- but i finished sunday school a looooooong time ago.
JediOfTheShire 4 years ago
And i think the problem is that GAYS aren't professional enough to serve with normal soldiers. I'd be very offended if i was sent into battle with a hip-swinging lisping man who acts like a woman. Or is that stereotype there because it ISN'T true?
JediOfTheShire 4 years ago
You seem like some naive teen with little to no idea of the world outside your Sunday school. So I suspect you have never served. Are you planning on serving? "...I'd be very offended if i was sent into battle with a hip-swinging lisping man who acts like a woman." Larry Craig, Ted Haggard with their hands on their waist, stomping the ground.
barn010 4 years ago
This is what your words make me think of. It's ok if you are gay. Fighting it with overcompensation is quite telling. Just relax, get over preachers and come out. We are here for you.
barn010 4 years ago
You obviously missed my point. My point was that a lot of gay people (not most, i didn't say most) make it their #1 priority to let people know that they're gay.The stereotypical "flaming queer" as i described in a quote above, does not belong on the battlefield. So to say "gays are ok to be in the military" is too broad for me. As long as they keep it quiet and they don't make everything ABOUT them being gay, then whatever.
JediOfTheShire 4 years ago
"You obviously missed my point. My point was that a lot of gay people (not most, i didn't say most)..." And i think the problem is that GAYS aren't professional enough to serve with normal soldiers. I may have missed your point because "...GAYS..." leaves interpretation open to mean ALL GAYS. ALSO. Just like hetero sexual men aren't allowed to flaunt their sexuality on the battle field a homosexual man would not be allowed. Just like any professional in time of war
barn010 4 years ago
Raibow worry-or, Brigadier General jerk off! reporting for duty mam!
mizko1 4 years ago
"Too"...guess that means you do? I'm just messin' with you, kiddo. Take care.
sig194 4 years ago
cnn and anderson cooper knew who this guy was before this debate,and lied about knowing him. none of these questions have any importance.
swolen4 4 years ago
YES! THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION! Finally.
jusitke07 4 years ago
Ok, good, someone else is here, I can really leave. Please Dustilee, just don't respond to any of my previous comments, and I won't respond to any of yours. I get an email every time you do, and I can' resist but come back. If I stop getting emails, I can really stay away, lol.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
What constitutes "the people" 51%?, one? If there existed 1000 different expressions of faith, should all faiths be afforded the time before the game to express? If yes , do ya think there would be time for the game?
barn010 4 years ago
Yeah, but the problem is, there are regions of the country where that's not a problem. Ever been to Utah? Fill a stadium with people and 90 plus percent will be Mormon. Not a lot of Buddhists there.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Ozzyrock2. , I think we have a core agreement. Something to the effect that the ACLU and Church can be ridiculous. Also. If 1000 expressions of faith were expressed there would be about 5 sec. per expression at best. . So maybe there would not be enough time to express all faiths. Maybe a solution would be to just enjoy the game and let people pray in private like Jesus held.
barn010 4 years ago
the ACLU is ridiculous. The church? jesus only told us not to pray to APPEAR righteous, he never said not to pray in public. And as christians we are called to try to help everyone we love find faith in God.
JediOfTheShire 4 years ago
No, the ACLU won't allow it. In most school districts, the Valedictorian's speech has to be reviewed by the district before it's given so as to eliminate anything that would be offensive. So much for free speech.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Oh, and Bill Clinton got elected with less than 23% of the vote back in 1992. So much for the majority.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
43%. Beating H. W. Bush by six percent. I don't know where you're getting your numbers from; it clearly ain't reality.
nedlum 4 years ago
23% of of registered voters, not the end results.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?
People who don't vote presumably don't care, one way or another. Therefore, we can say that any one who gets elected has the effective support of all the people who didn't vote for the other guy
nedlum 4 years ago
It MATTERS because you have the most powerful person in the world elected by 23% of those that are governed. I guess as long as it's YOUR guy, it's okay.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
While I didn't vote for Bush, I don't care that he won in 2004 with, what, twenty six percent of registered voters. By your logic, you'd need 90% of the popular to get a majority.
This is a stupid squabble that has nothing to do with anything, though. So I'm going to just ignore it from now on.
nedlum 4 years ago
We've both made our points ad nauseum. I'm sure we've both got better things to move onto now.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
You're still here? Damnit, I fell into the trap.
dustilee 4 years ago
John, you'll see I only check in like once a day at this point. If you go to your account options, you can prevent getting any more emails from posts. I was getting about 30 a day.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Can we seriously agree to end this, and not go back and respond anymore? I've spent all day on this. We've written over 50 pages of comments, and about 10 on the other one.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Dammit, why can't I leave???
J0hn3577 4 years ago
And I'm glad that going through and rating all my comments "thumbs down" yourself makes you feel better about your arguments.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Can't say I've done that... But its kinda funny when you think about it. At least someone agrees with me.
dustilee 4 years ago
Right, it just happens that we are the only two people commenting tonight, yet my new comments have thumbs down next to them. I don't believe a word you say.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Haha, even my comment about not being able to learn a language because no one around me speaks it has a thumbs down. Who else would have bothered?
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Maybe someone who thinks those languages are important? Lol...
dustilee 4 years ago
I really need to go. I'll let this end on you letting yourself degenerate into accusing me of oppressing women. I'm not reading anything else you write because you're no longer worthy of it. I'll be busy living my gay life. But really, just remember me every time a new gay rights law passes.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Again, dustilee, what are these popular websites you blog for?
J0hn3577 4 years ago
i didn't say i blogged *for any site... i said i had blogs on two popular sites. i don't want the enire world in my business, unlike you. but lets just say there is a space and a book where you can find them
dustilee 4 years ago
Hahahaha, I knew it. More misrepresentations. You clearly wrote that you blogged to make me think some site hired you to blog for them, and here you only blog on the two most common social networking sites in the world, where anyone can blog.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Please show me where I said I was hired! I did no such thing. All i said is that i published/posted my research on my blogs. I didn't say where. You assumed.
dustilee 4 years ago
Lie by omission.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
There was no ommission. There was no lying. You are worse than any woman I know at this point. Its not my fault you are trying to make things up at this point to make yourself look better. You call names, you belittle, you are just another abusive man who will do or say anything to and about a woman to get what he wants.
dustilee 4 years ago
Please spare me. Now you are playing the "poor little woman" card? Talk about spin.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Its not a spin, you are speaking the same way as every abusive person I have ever encountered. I'm gonna see your partner on tv someday saying, "But I looooove him... waaa waaa waa".
dustilee 4 years ago
Wow, this is funny...I googled your sn and found that you're on some dating sites...can't imagine why someone like you would need to do that. Hahaha, this probably isn't you, but someone is using this screen name on a erotic stories site...bisexual woman. That would be priceless if it was you.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
And it would explain a lot.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
It's called self-defense.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
As an Army soldier, i dont recall ever documenting myself as a heterosexual or homosexual. It is irrelevant what sexual preference a person has when bullets are flying all around. A gay person can fight just as well as a hetero. I find it disrespectful for heterosexual men and women in the Army to flaunt their sexual encounters just as much as homosexual men and women to flaunt theirs. Sex and war do not mix. This should not be an issue
overpriced17 4 years ago
well said, and it is the issue. People are forgetting the main concept: Don't ask... And that means its up to the rest not to tell. No one cares unless they face to face with it.
dustilee 4 years ago
But straights aren't discharged for flaunting and gays are. Unequal, end of story.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Dustilee, you like to talk about "dominant" purposes...how many army commanders have been discharged for "asking"? How many gays discharged for "telling?" What's the main concept again?
J0hn3577 4 years ago
No, the main concept is not "don't ask"-- that's just a suggestion for commanders that they can decide whether they want to follow or not. The main concept is "don't tell"-- to get rid of as many gays as possible with a slip of the tongue.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Commanders don't ask. They respond to complaints... Even complaints about the straight guys banging their battle-buddy's wife.
dustilee 4 years ago
Then they start an investigation, which involves asking.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
if your gay battle buddy makes an unwanted sexual advance, there should be no questions?
dustilee 4 years ago
That's not where it stops. "I saw him come out of a gay bar" is certainly not the same as what you just suggested, yet that triggers the asking.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
They would be asking about any troop who made a video question for the youtube debate. That's why some of them used placards in front of their faces to ask why DADT is necessary. If they even took part in the political process, they would face discharge. My only regret is that CNN picked this question instead of a current military member's who can't even take part in the debate openly.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Yet, gays are not discriminated against...no. Not in the Land of the Free.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
My beef with this question was simply that this man lied about his service and affiliation. He was an "honorary" general. He never fufilled the duties of a real general. He's also a member of the Clinton camp... This was a Republican debate. His question should have been saved for a general election debate.
dustilee 4 years ago
Sure, but turn it on its head, and the ONE PERSON that objects to a religious display and "just doesn't like those religious people" gets to have something changed for the majority. That's also wrong.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
I'm not sure what thread this is part of, because youtube made it a separate comment on my screen, but if you are referring to the "War on Christmas" type battles, I think those battles are facially ridiculous, HOWEVER, not so much when the religious leak into government goes beyond manger scenes and displays of the Ten Commandments and a prayer before a high school football game, and affects social policy like marriage and DADT.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Our country was founded on certain religous beliefs. Yet, we succesfully allowed people to practice their freedom of and from it for over 100 years while still being able to hold true to our roots. If you don't like the way our country was set up, get out and go somewhere you agree with more.
dustilee 4 years ago
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli-- an official treaty passed by Congress in the late 1700s: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." We're not a Christian nation. If you don't like it, get out and go somewhere you agree with more.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
What I said completly went over your head. I don't know if I can dumb it down enough for you.
dustilee 4 years ago
You are not allowing religions who want to marry gay people to practice their religions freely.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
I'm not? And how am I preventing this? I don't even go to church as it is. Tell me how I personally am standing in your way of practicing religion. You can practice however you wish, whether I think you're doing it wrong or not.
dustilee 4 years ago
"You" as in people of your obvious views on gay marriage who are currently in the majority in this country. You stated that the country has allowed religions to practice freely while still being founded on certain religious principles. I content that the country does not allow all religions to practice freely because it prohibits gay marriage. So, your statement was false.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Voting is here so the majority can rule while respecting the rights of the minority to vote and say their piece. It doesn't give the minority the right to impose on the majority. Thats a dictatorship.
dustilee 4 years ago
The minority is not "imposing" on the majority by asking to have the same rights as the majority, which gays don't have right now. And, the minority is not just protected by being able to say its "piece," there are supposedly protections in place to keep the majority from enacting certain policies to impose on the minority, which is what is going on here, make no mistake.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
"You can do this, so we want to do this too" is not imposing on the rights of others. "We can do this, but you're not allowed" is.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Its completely different. To say otherwise is complete bull. You can want to change nature all you want, no law is going to make putting something in your rectum healthy... I'm sorry.
dustilee 4 years ago
I can buy beer, a 20 year old can't.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Being married is not a right, its a priveledge. Just like driving. Should we let he blind drive?
dustilee 4 years ago
Not according to the Supreme Court in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374. There was a statute that said if a man owed child support he could not get married until it was paid off. The Court said that was unconstitutional because marriage is a fundamental right. You should brush up on your U.S. history. You lose this one.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
It's interesting how many "rights" the court "finds" in the Constitution while saying others don't exist.
Let's see...marriage, marriage...not in the Bill of Rights...in any of the remaining Amendments? Nope. Dang.
Up next...abortion. A..B..O..R..T..hmmm. Not in the Constitution either.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
no, a law that is good for the goose is good for the gander. there are not two seperate sets of laws. we all vote. some bills pass and some fail. thats how it works. and yes, by shoving this liberal agenda crap down all our throats 24/7, you are imposing...
dustilee 4 years ago
There are restrictions placed on a lot of things. A 16yr old can get a driver's license. a 15 1/2yr old can't. Does 6 mos make that much difference? An 18yr old can enlist in the military, but can't buy beer. Have his rights been violated?
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Gay marriage isn't a religion.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Have you inventoried all religions of the world? And made a decision as to which ones make YOUR cut? One definition of religion is something to the effect : anything a group of people believe in.
barn010 4 years ago
Wow. That's broad. So the Democratic Party is a religion now? Toyota Motor Corporation is a religion?
You see the problem here? It's never JUST about gay rights. Everyone that thinks like you have this bizarre world view regarding EVERYTHING. "you're not Catholic. You're just a bunch of people that believe the same thing". The mind that alters, alters all.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
This lends support to the notion of leaving public display of faith out of the ballgame. Because, if we had to be fair and let all religions be expressed before the game, there wouldn't be enough time for the game
barn010 4 years ago
You know what's funny. I don't give a SHIT about the religions of the world-only the ones that are practicing in my country. Why? Because we're discussing laws, rights, and social policy in MY country. Once again, if the U.S. is SO bad, try having this discussion in IRAN.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
I highly doubt there are many religions in the world which *aren't* practiced in the US.
nedlum 4 years ago
Great. There also in the minority.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Yes, they're in the minority. Your point was?
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Actually, that's not true. There are a number of religions that WILL marry people. I don't think the government should endorse it. On the other hand, you WANT the government to legitimize your marriage.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
The government of India wasn't founded on Hinduism. Funny thing is, there are 700 million HINDUS there. I think it's safe to say they are a HINDU nation. Now, I'm going to move to India, and bitch and complain that the Hindu nation won't change to suit me.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
It's interesting the choice of words in Article 11. It's never been in a treaty BEFORE and not again SINCE. Is it possible the words were included because the other country was Muslim and were wary of engaging in a treatywith those evil Christians?
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
We just had another battle on the WAR on CHRISTMAS in Fort Collins, CO. Someone complained about the CHRISTMAS lights. There was no nativity, no tree, just LIGHTS. Like it or not John, marriage AND the display of the Ten Commandments are both the result of social policy. The ACLU, with its roots in Communism, has been trying to destroy all religious displays.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
I'm really done this time. Really, Really (unless I see something that I MUST respond to). I will continue to try to read here, but I'm not posting anymore because it's interfering with my work. Good luck to everyone, and may you all see the light.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Fine line between "free" and "anarchy" Warsie.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
According to the Realist view of geopolitics, the World generally is Anarchic. There just isn't enough room for us all.
dustilee 4 years ago
I don't think I subscribe to the realist view of geopolitics.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Funny, my marriage, ordained by God, not the government, is recognized around the world and multiple religions, not just "one book" as you call it. The Bible? The Koran? The Torah? The same can't be said about Elton John OR Melissa Etheridge. Sorry.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
The reason the UK recognizes it, however, isn't because of God. It's *because* you signed a marriage contract which has been recognized as valid by the US government. If you'd had the same ceremony in a church without the contract, your marriage would not be recognized anywhere.
So, since the government *is* involved in it's recognition, can you advance the reason government should discriminate against gay couples?
nedlum 4 years ago
My argument remains that the government needs to get OUT of the marriage business. I don't want to go to the gov't for permission to get married, and no one else should.
What about bi-sexual people? Should a guy who's bi-sexual be able to marry two people?
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
1. I'm fine with government only recognizing "civil unions", and leaving marriages up to churches. Provided whatever they do recognize isn't discriminatory.
2. Bisexuals are attracted to both genders; that doesn't mean they're in relationships with both genders. If you like blondes and redheads, do you need to marry one of each?
3 Polygamy is an entirely different issue, anyway.
nedlum 4 years ago
I disagree. There are multiple marriages I don't agree with, but using the "we're consenting adults" argument, you couldn't deny them.
1. A woman is 50 years old and past the age of child-bearing. A man is 52 years old. They want to marry. However, they're brother and sister. Should they be denied a marriage license? Don't invoke "incest" here. Two consenting adults should be able to do what they want.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
They should be allowed to marry. Next question.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Wow. You truly are an open minded person John. Be sure you announce to the world that in addition to gay marriage, you'll accept polygamy, and incest (brother to brother, brother to sister, or parent to child) since gender is irrelvant. Great. The best thing? This progressive movement is "inevitable".
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
I would say it would be inevitable, except there are not enough people fighting for it at this point. Not to mention, it would be hard to work out allowing incestuous couples who cannot bear children to marry while restricting others. But, in theory, if it doesn't harm anyone, it should be allowed.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Regarding 1 and 2: I lean towards allowing them, partially. The first is a blatantly unlikely hypothetical, on the other hand, and the risk of genetic defects *is* a concern. As for the second: if all three consent to all marriages (the two women must agree to each other, after all), I'm fine with it.
nedlum 4 years ago
You missed the part where the woman was PAST the age of having children, so genetic defects aren't an issue. However, since incest is based on RELIGIOUS doctrine, not law, you have to support it as well. Be sure and wave your "I'm for polygamy, incest, and gay marriage" sign at the next protest.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
I'm not going to argue about how to fairly implement incest and polygamy laws. It is sufficient that I've stated my theoretical non-objection to the practices if they are not harmful to third parties, which, LET ME BE SURE NOT TO LEAVE OUT, is a huge assumption at this point, unlike with gay marriage. So, no, I will not wave polygamy and incest flags. We don't have enough information about those at this time, or enough interest in legalizing them.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
Point is, there are other questions and concerns with incest and polygamy than there are with gay marriage. You have to consider fairness vis a vis younger incestuous couples if you allow older ones. Not to say it couldn't be done, but it's an extra concern that must be considered.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
I suppose I did miss it.
Incest taboo comes from an inborn, psycological adversion, not the Bible.
And I'm not *for* incest. I simply don't have a reason to oppose the right of those who wish to engage in it, other than the power dynamics of parent-child incest. Much like smoking: against smoking, for the right to smoke.
nedlum 4 years ago
Very well put.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
An INBORN PSYCHOLOGICAL adversion. RIIIIGGGHT. Adversion isn't a word and if you're brought up being told that you're going to marry your sister, you won't have any "aversion" to it. There are arranged marriages in many cultures (although incest isn't involved) and there's no "aversion" to it.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Ah. So you win the argument because I made a typo?
Children raised communally (read: siblings) have an aversion towards "incest", even when they're not related. There is *research* supporting this.
Your argument, on the other hand, pointlessly conflates arranged marriages and incest.
nedlum 4 years ago
Interesting. Can you show me such "research" or was it an article you read in Newsweek?
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
This is a fun one. FOR the right to smoke, but yet I support enacting BANS all over the country preventing people from exercising their right. No hypocrisy there!
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
That would be hypocritical. Which is why I *don't* support bans on smoking in all public places.
nedlum 4 years ago
Even though you don't, it's already been done.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
I'm well aware of that. But you called me a hypocrite for something that I'm not guilty of.
My point is this: even if you don't believe in gay marriage, you can still support the rights of those who *do* believe in them, to have one. Their marriage neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket. The only argument I've seen you give against gay marriage is, well, they can still get some of the rights (not all, as your tax comment admits) without being married. And that's not an argument at all.
nedlum 4 years ago
So, if I'm against a lifestyle, and a relationship, I need to support it anyway? Sorry. No gay marriage.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
How is it your buisness? This is the question you refuse to answer. Because, of course, it has no answer. How does it in any way make your life poorer knowing that Jim and Edgar from down the block have made it legal? It means the world to them: Shared name, shared taxes, shared custody on their adoptive son, who (if we say this is Delaware) had previously been legally Jim's kid. Why does their happiness threaten yours?
nedlum 4 years ago
They don't have to get a marriage license to change their name, live in the same place, adopt a child, etc.
I think I've already answered on numerous posts. The lifestyle is unhealthy, even if they're in "monogomous" relationships.
So Nedlum, now you get to change my mind and the majority of this country. Good luck!
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
You and everyone that thinks like you MAKE it my business. I'm not changing the way I vote so that a group of people that indulge in a dangerous lifestyle can feel better about themselves. If anything, it would be ILLEGAL for gays to adopt as well! It's bad enough without them bringing the innocent into their business.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Also, understand that there are actions people take that will effect SOCIETY as a whole, if not the individual. I may never choose to use illegal drugs and will continue to vote against legalization because I think they're bad for society. It doesn't effect me in the least.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
2. A bisexual is in a relationship with both genders and doesn't want to choose. They're all consenting adults. We're not debating the "morality" of polygamy. That's not for you to decide. Can the government deny marriage licenses to three people who are of legal age and consenting adults? Nope, they can't. That's discrimination!
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
Psychological studies show that groups of differing numbers actually have different characteristics, which wouldn't matter except for effects on children. I don't know the effects of polygamy on children, but assuming there was no difference, polygamy should be legal as well. However, I also qualify that by saying that those families shouldn't be able to get any more financial advantages than two-person marriages.
J0hn3577 4 years ago
3. Opposing gays marriage licenses isn't discriminatory. Whatever "rights" they talk about being denied are easily remedied under existing law.
Tax breaks? Many married people file separately. Adoption? Gays can adopt. Property ownership or beneficiary designation? Gays can own property together and you can make anyone your beneficiary.
This is about "recognition" and forcing others to recognize a relationship we don't agree with-not about rights or discrimination.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
"Many married people file separately"
And many file jointly. You *are* denying gay couples that option; don't pretend that you're not.
Adoption: in many states, only one partner is the legal guardian, and if one gives birth, the other is a legal stranger.
"This is about recognition." Does this mean, if I don't like the idea of a Jew marrying a Christian, I can have their marriage declared null? I don't agree with it; don't make me recognize it!
nedlum 4 years ago
You GET IT Nedlum! We the majority don't agree with it, so we're not going to recognize it!
We the majority declared people under the age of 21 can't buy beer! Too bad!
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
So the will of the majority can trample on the rights of the minority for no reason whatsoever.
Interesting. So if the majority in a state didn't believe in the rights of black men to marry white women, for Chinese children to go to Western schools, to for Jews to earn the same as Christians, that would also be fine? No? Why not? Where is the line drawn, Ozzy?
nedlum 4 years ago
It gets even better!
Dumb people can't get into Med School? Did you know that? Dumb people don't CHOOSE to be born dumb, and we're discriminating against them.
Someone that is 20 years and 6 months can't buy beer! We're NEEEDLESSLY discriminating. Boo hoo!
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
I thought I replied to this; sorry.
Short answer: med schools want the most qualified doctors, because less qualified doctors leads to more malpractice, and dead patients. The dead patients would be victims of unqualified doctors.
Who is the victim of gay marriage?
nedlum 4 years ago
Nice dodge.
18 year olds can't buy beer. 21 year olds can.
Systematic government discrimination against 18 year olds. Why? Because the law says so.
SOCIETY is the victim of gay marriage. Like it or not, you'll never convince me it's NORMAL, HEALTHY, GOOD for SOCIETY, CHILDREN, or the COUNTRY.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
You didn't read my OTHER example. TAX LAW.
TAX LAWS vary from state to state. Some are tax at higher rates than others. Unfair? Discrimination? Who are the victims? Those that pay the taxes!
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
I didn't not read it; I didn't know what it was responding to. Which, of course, is because it's nonsense.
There is no victim; the laws are applied equally *within each state*, and are set by representatives of the people of each state.
Citizens benefit from the services their taxes buy. If a citizen of RI feels that the taxes are to high, he's free to go to CT, just as someone from CT who feels his school is bad can move to RI.
You can't choose your attractions,.
nedlum 4 years ago
You lost the argument, so it's nonsense.
If one group of people are taxed at 25% of their income and another group is taxed at 40% of their income, that's fair? There aren't any victims? Why should ONE group pay more for the "services taxes" buy than another group? Oh, because its the law.
Gays can't marry in TX? Move to Massachusetts.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
You never answered my question on the issue of driver's licenses and buying alcohol.
Lawmakers NEEDLESSLY discriminate against people that are 15yrs 6mos old from getting a driver's license.
People that are 20yrs and 6 mos old can't buy beer.
Should we change the law to accomodate those poor folks we're discriminating against?
Don't change the subject Nedlum.
ozzyrock2 4 years ago
That's an idiotic strawman. Clearly, few ten year olds are physically or emotionally mature enough to drive or (arguably; Europe may disagree) drink, while most thirty year olds are. Society is restricting their access, because a fifteen year old is more likely to cause an accident; a twenty year old is more likely to get alcohol poisoning. We can quibble over the ages, but there is a clear rationale for the laws. Again: what does the gay-marriage ban do?
nedlum 4 years ago
Idiodic strawman? What difference is there between an 18 year old and a 21 year old as far as being able to drink?
ozzyrock2 4 years ago