Dork
Highlander's MPD
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/03/13/609041.html&cvqh=itn_Pace
Give me a F'ing Break!
Give me a F'ing Break!
Gay Advocates seek apology
- Thread starter Dork
- Start date
LordStanley
I know nothing
Dork said:
Here, I'll give them one.....
Im sorry your gay.
The general was right in his first statement.
R
remaxrealtor
Guest
It's not nice to make a person with 2 head fractures laugh that hard!LordStanley said:
T
Toreadoralpha
Guest
PC junkies aren't into tolerance. They can't tolerate someone having an opinion different from their own. Too bad, waa freakin waa.
If you can tolerate a D!@% in the A$$, you should be able to tolerate a joke, or an opinion!
If you can tolerate a D!@% in the A$$, you should be able to tolerate a joke, or an opinion!
truby20
Fighting like a girl
So it took me about 10 seconds to find this data which is probably less time than what it took you to write the question:bohman said:
1,426,713 active duty troops
65000/1400000=4.6%
Or add the reserves, 65000/2600000 = 2.5%
Both numbers seem plausible.
truby20 said:
But it's a typical statistical mistake - assuming all statistical populations are perfect samples of the larger population. Can we assume for example, that San Francisco is 2.5% gay, or that male hairdressers are 2.5% gay? Some populations are partially self-selecting. I think it's very possible that don't ask, don't tell discourages many from ever joining.
Wickedwrench
Stubborn and opinionated
Dork said:
God forbid someone who isn't queer speak his mind these days.
This PC world we live in now is a hoot.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
See...
...this is about policy; don't ask, don't tell.
Pace says adultery is immoral and homosexuality is immoral. One of the definitions of immoral is 'outside accepted norms' and the military has long said it doesn't like infidelity and homosexuality. Gays don't like the word as another definition of immoral is 'wrong'. People who cheat don't much like it either.
The real debate is whether or not the military should still be gay free in this day and age because all this was brought up again in reviewing Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' abomination.
If Pace believes homosexuality is bad for the military, how else is he supposed to make his case?
"We don't want people buggering in fox holes. That's no way to stand a post."
You have to make a judgement, a moral one, when you take that kind of a position. Would NOW accept a membership, or strive for one, that was 50% male? If they exclude men isn't that a moral decision? How about the NAACP? Should they strive to have an organization that is only 12% black? If not, isn't that a moral decision? Should the Girls Scouts be 1/2 boys? Boys Scouts 1/2 girls? Should we ban all boy or girl schools? Bathrooms?
On moral grounds it's acceptable and reasonable to me that NOW doesn't want men, that the NAACP doesn't want whites and so forth; It is in those organizations interests which brings us back to the original question; gays in the military?
Is it bad for the military to have a gay linguist who is fluent in Farsi? Or most any office or clerical setting?
Is it bad to have a gay guy in a tank crew? I wouldn't think a woman stuck with three guys in a tank is a great idea.
I don't accept that being gay makes you unfit for service any more than I accept being straight makes you fit for service. I do, however, think it is a consideration.
I also think Warner is doing what I dislike most about politicians; pandering. What is his position? Is he for or against 'don't ask, don't tell' and why? On what grounds? Moral ones?
...this is about policy; don't ask, don't tell.
Pace says adultery is immoral and homosexuality is immoral. One of the definitions of immoral is 'outside accepted norms' and the military has long said it doesn't like infidelity and homosexuality. Gays don't like the word as another definition of immoral is 'wrong'. People who cheat don't much like it either.
The real debate is whether or not the military should still be gay free in this day and age because all this was brought up again in reviewing Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' abomination.
If Pace believes homosexuality is bad for the military, how else is he supposed to make his case?
"We don't want people buggering in fox holes. That's no way to stand a post."
You have to make a judgement, a moral one, when you take that kind of a position. Would NOW accept a membership, or strive for one, that was 50% male? If they exclude men isn't that a moral decision? How about the NAACP? Should they strive to have an organization that is only 12% black? If not, isn't that a moral decision? Should the Girls Scouts be 1/2 boys? Boys Scouts 1/2 girls? Should we ban all boy or girl schools? Bathrooms?
On moral grounds it's acceptable and reasonable to me that NOW doesn't want men, that the NAACP doesn't want whites and so forth; It is in those organizations interests which brings us back to the original question; gays in the military?
Is it bad for the military to have a gay linguist who is fluent in Farsi? Or most any office or clerical setting?
Is it bad to have a gay guy in a tank crew? I wouldn't think a woman stuck with three guys in a tank is a great idea.
I don't accept that being gay makes you unfit for service any more than I accept being straight makes you fit for service. I do, however, think it is a consideration.
I also think Warner is doing what I dislike most about politicians; pandering. What is his position? Is he for or against 'don't ask, don't tell' and why? On what grounds? Moral ones?
bohman
Well-Known Member
truby20 said:
Plausible, maybe. But it would blow my mind to know for certain that 65,000 people made a substantial committment to serve an organization that specifically does not welcome them.
And please forgive me for asking a question and wasting your 10 seconds of research time. Here's hoping you can use your time towards a more valuable purpose in the future.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well...
...isn't there a rather large difference between a white man who had been raised to think of blacks as inferior human beings and whose superiors thought so as well versus why we don't want a woman in a foxhole with a man of any color?
One of those reasons has changed; the other one never will. Yes? No?
elaine said:
...isn't there a rather large difference between a white man who had been raised to think of blacks as inferior human beings and whose superiors thought so as well versus why we don't want a woman in a foxhole with a man of any color?
One of those reasons has changed; the other one never will. Yes? No?
Here's my 2 cents.
If you are willing to take a bullet to the head for your country, I could care less who you go home to sleep with at night.
Hell, either way...I could care less who you go home to sleep with at night.
If anything wouldn't gay bashers want gays on the front lines?
If you are willing to take a bullet to the head for your country, I could care less who you go home to sleep with at night.
Hell, either way...I could care less who you go home to sleep with at night.
If anything wouldn't gay bashers want gays on the front lines?