Should gays/lesbians be afforded equal rights?

1. 60

   thejcrevelator2posted 15 years ago

   I think there are two questions here.  One is civil and the other is religious.  The Constitution guarantee “equal protection” for all and yet we don’t provide this to gays because we allow religion to enter into the civil side.  If your church doesn’t want to marry gay people so be it, but you should not have the right to deny anyone their Constitutional rights to the benefits of marriage.
    
   Studies have shown there are many monetary and social rights that married couples have and these must be available to people who want to get married – even gay people.
   Civil Marriage should be provided to all who want to get married, period.
   
   It is funny that churches enter the political arena on issues like gay marriage and yet refuse to demand universal healthcare for all based on the Second Commandment (love your neighbor as you love yourself) and the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you).  Is that really Christian?

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      My thoughts, exactly!

      replyreport
2. 71

   Ralph Deedsposted 15 years ago

   We've covered this subject pretty well. I wonder if anybody has changed his or her mind? Somehow I doubt it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      TMMasonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      No. I don't believe any of us have. But at least it was a civil discussion. I have seen many of these conversations devolve quickly enough. This one I must say is pretty civil indeed.

      replyreport
3. 59

   william_simpsonposted 15 years ago

   Is it really an issue of equal rights? Or is this litigation a sinister agenda.
   I was raped by a pedophile as a little boy. This damaged my self-perception and led me to make decisions of grave consequence. No one, not even my parents, ever noticed the change in my behavior and the homosexual man who did this to me was never punished. What led him to commit this vulgar act against me? Was he violated as a boy? Did he know what he did was wrong?
   
   Fast forward to today. The militant homosexual agenda, backed by bipartisan politicians and supported by clueless activists, are forcing acceptance of this lifestyle choice upon the World. In most industralized nations it is now illegal and in some cases, a crime, to speak out against the homosexual lifestyle. And sadly, the people who are so caught up in the struggles of everyday life, don't see the writing on the wall.
   
   Consider that the equal rights agenda just might be an assault on Americas First Amendment. When the ruling class takes away our right to free speech, the class seperations will fall. And then the proponets of the homosexual agenda will realize the fool they were played to be. They do not care about your equality!
   I don't care what a person does in the privacy of their home, but do not flaunt your sexual perversion in my face. It offends me! Put this in your pipe, and smoke on it...

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      You make a big mistake equating pedophilia with homosexuality. And your legal arguments are incorrect. There is nothing sinister about the pursuit of equal rights by gay and lesbian Americans.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         william_simpsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Mr Deeds
         
         You make the mistake of denying the reality that sexual perversion is the driving emotion behind the act of pedophilia. I would think I've given much more thought and research to this subject than you. As to my "legal arguments", you just might want to wake up to reality.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Painfully Sarah Palin

      replyreport
4. 61

   topgunjagerposted 15 years ago

   nothing really changes when 2 gay people get married, it's just saying that they'll be together and love each other for the rest of their lives on paper and that they can pass on their belongings to whoever they want. If we let drunk people marry that just met the same night in vegas, why can't gay people marry when they make more sense?

   replyreport
   1. 36

      ddoingit1posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Gays should be able to marry, to pass down inheritance past the state Gov, interferrence.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Is that to keep the sheets clean?

      replyreport
5. 59

   tksenseiposted 15 years ago

   Is the military's responsibility 'social justice,' or military effectiveness?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      That question was answered a long time ago.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Both. They are compatible, not mutually exclusive. This is a good example of attempted reasoning by false dualism or dichotomy. In logic classes it's called the either/or fallacy.

      replyreport
6. 61

   topgunjagerposted 15 years ago

   the real issue about equal rights for gay marriage is hate, you can call it whatever you want and deny it however you want, but the fact that these gay people doesn't affect anybody's life in anyway and you interfering in their lives like you have the right to makes it a hate issue. i mean really, some dude wants to stuff his schlong in another dude's pooper, how that does affect me in anyway?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      No it's not. It may be for some (it is for some people regardless of the issue) but certainly not for all - or for any number you can measure.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         topgunjagerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         yeah but if the hate reason outnumbers all other reasons then it is the main issue=)

         replyreport
         1. 59

            tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Ok, prove that it is.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               topgunjagerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               prove that it isn't

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Complete abandonment of logic.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     topgunjagerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     wow you really got me there, i wish i can be as smart as you are=)

                     replyreport
      2. 71

         Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         The extent of the issue is probably similar to that of the issue of opposition to integration of blacks in the military, perhaps even more intense because anti-gay hatred is being fanned by plenty of fundamentalist religious adherents.

         replyreport
7. 61

   neysajasperposted 15 years ago

   I do think that gays and lesbians should be given equal rights as you cannot object on anyone's inidviduality and existence. It is their choice to make selection in sex. If a guy search love in a guy then what's teh problem. Why people make an issue out of it.. I do not think that there is any problem and in this world where people are free to make their own choices then why there is a ban on gays and lesbians.. this is sick .. x-(

   replyreport
8. 61

   topgunjagerposted 15 years ago

   if it's not hate then why do these people actually fight for something that doesn't affect the way they live in any way?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      You assume both motivation and conclusion.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         topgunjagerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         anyone who would deny someone to live a harmless love filled life needs to get laid, there's a million other issues that can actually improve our way of living if we take action and yet we focus on something as irrelevant as two gay dudes having sex, kind of pathetic and childish don't you think?

         replyreport
9. 61

   topgunjagerposted 15 years ago

   look!!! two gay dudes are about to get married!!! my life is over now!!! how again?

   replyreport
10. 59

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    "Agree with me or you're pathetic and childish!" isn't much of an argument.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       topgunjagerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       so what argument do you have?

       replyreport
11. 61

    topgunjagerposted 15 years ago

    and please don't let this issue stray away by pointing out that my argument is not an argument, that's according to who? you? and you are?

    replyreport
12. 61

    topgunjagerposted 15 years ago

    you're one of those people who tries to get involved in other people's lives which doesn't even affect you and you try to turn this conversation into an argument, yeah, i was completely wrong about the hate thing, you really got me there=)

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Now you know what 'kind of people' I am?
       
       
       
       Sometimes an issue evokes such strong emotion that logic is disregarded, it seems.

       replyreport
       1. 71

          Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Your logic isn't exactly faultless.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Better than "childish and pathetic!"

             replyreport
       2. 60

          marinealways24posted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Hmmm, Who did you get that from?

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             No one in particular.

             replyreport
       3. 61

          topgunjagerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          of course i do, how else would you know someone but by their views and opinions about things, is there another way to know you besides what you say and do?

          replyreport
13. 59

    Friendlywordposted 15 years ago

    Now that we can have a serious discussion; there are gay people in the army that serve out their whole career in the army.  Did only difference in them serving is who knows who they have sex with.  There was a special on TV about soldiers going into Afghanistan towns and trying to talk to the native people there.  They could not communicate with the people of that town because all of the interpreters that could speak that language had been thrown out of the army because of dont ask dont tell. The practicle matter is:  because the American military operates out of ignorance and hate, rather than the stretegic advantage all other militaries in the world considers when deploying the best people for their troops, the troops in that village were at a disadvantage and left without communicating why they were there in their village. Nor could they get any information as to where the taliban were.  Practical Enough?

    replyreport
14. 79

    livelongerposted 15 years ago

    I wonder if there's some connection between being a gay man and linguistic skill. Years ago, I met an Italian interpreter for the EU and he said the interpreter "wing" of the European Parliament was known as the "gay wing" or something like that, because all the male interpreters were gay.

    replyreport
15. 0

    lyricsingrayposted 15 years ago

    

    replyreport
16. 64

    awareposted 15 years ago

    define equal rights?

    replyreport
17. 68

    AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years ago

    Surely having women and men serve in the same units is (at least roughly) the same issue as having gays and lesbians serve in the same units as straight people.
    
    Just as a side point, arguably the greatest military mastermind of all time (perhaps behind Genghis Khan, though maybe his method was simply one of brute mass terrorism), was Alexander the Great...

    replyreport
18. 70

    marieryanposted 15 years ago

    Gays, lesbians, women, children, physically disabled people, blind people, immigrants, gypsies, deaf people, lame people, emmigrants, foreigners, white people, blue people, green people, black people. And so the list goes on and please forgive me if I failed to mention any, ANY social community, however small. Oh yes, and also anyone who lives on this planet! It is so, so depressing for me, as an old person, to know we are STILL discussing basic human rightS. HUMAN RIGHTS has to be the way forward.
    Answer to question: YES

    replyreport
19. 61

    topgunjagerposted 15 years ago

    i'm sorry i take that back, you're only fighting for you right to think you have a right to to deny other people you don't know and understand their rights to be exactly who they are, of course you're not an idiot=)

    replyreport
20. 61

    topgunjagerposted 15 years ago

    time to eat turkey, bash me later, i have to go=)

    replyreport
21. 78

    Uninvited Writerposted 15 years ago

    And the fact someone is gay or not has absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of the military.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Denno66posted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I believe the effectiveness of their training and weaponry is the true measure of the soldier.

       replyreport
    2. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Absolutely nothing? Are you really unable to even concieve of reasonable concerns that might be taken into consideration, or are do you just feel that you must speak in terms of absolutes or else betray your fundamental position?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Sarah Palin

          replyreport
       2. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          OK, lol...Provided that you are a male, TK, lets be frank and blunt.  What are your fears (and you obviously didn't serve in the military, so I imagine this is just conjecture)?  That you will be raped...or that other gays have the power to "turn you gay?"  That the quote, quote, male camaraderie thing that the military relies on to be so effective will be broken?
          
          lol

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Why do you say "Provided that you are a male"? Are you in doubt, and would it change your comments in any case?

             replyreport
          2. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Who mentioned "fears"?

             replyreport
22. 78

    Uninvited Writerposted 15 years ago

    So, you think it would make a difference if a soldier was gay or not?

    replyreport
23. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    haha.  OK.  "Reasonable concerns," not fear.  (Yeah.)  And actually, theoretically speaking (I know, perhaps a bit beyond your ken), yes, it would make a difference as far as perspective if you were male or female.
    
    You've heard of "rape consciousness?"  Women are said to always be aware of this fact of their existence.  However, women serve in the military now.
    
    So, what is it?  Fear of rape, or the 'ol, 'army would not be as effective' ploy?  Or unrealized gay tendencies (gay people will turn others gay)?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Please elaborate.
       
       
       
       Oh, and you didn't answer the other part of my question. Are you seriously in doubt as to my gender? Or was that meant to be a personal barb?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Read up on it.  I assume you are an adult at least 19 or older.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             You brought it up. Please do share.

             replyreport
          2. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Do you really think I'm as young as 19? Or was that meant as a personal shot as well? I know you've read my profile (over and over and over).

             replyreport
             1. 59

                tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Any answer to this question yet?

                replyreport
       2. 59

          tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          No answer yet?

          replyreport
    2. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Is consideration of the effectiveness of the military just a 'ploy' to you? Not important?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          The seeds of my argument are in the verbiage.  Grasp them and extrapolate.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

             replyreport
24. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    You obviously are unable (times 20, lol) to carry on a valid argument or frame a valid rebuttal.  Not worth my time, seriously, so until you do further reading, I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of this "conversation."

    replyreport
25. 59

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    So you're not going to answer any of my questions? That's too bad. When you decided to join the discussion I thought you wanted to participate. Well, if you change your mind...
    
    
    
    
    If you do decide to join us again you might tell me if you seriously think (times 20?!) that I am incapable of having a discussion with you, or if that too was just another personal insult.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Just wondering...

       replyreport
26. 79

    livelongerposted 15 years ago

    How do gay/lesbian soldiers not being forced to cover up their personal life reduce the effectiveness of our armed forces?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Are you really unable to even concieve of reasonable concerns that might be taken into consideration, or are do you just feel that you must speak in terms of absolutes or else betray your fundamental position?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Denno66posted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Hey, you said that verbatim a while ago.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Still hopeful someone will actually answer.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Denno66posted 15 years agoin reply to this

                

                replyreport
             2. 78

                Uninvited Writerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                You haven't answered my question and the one several others have asked you.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   Ok, which one?

                   replyreport
       2. 79

          livelongerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          What do you mean? Please be specific.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             I was pretty specific, I think.
             
             Are you really unable to even concieve of reasonable concerns that might be taken into consideration regarding allowing openly homosexual people to serve in the armed forces?

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                And the reasonable concerns = ?  "Reasonable concerns" is very abstract.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   So, you honestly CANNOT conceive of any? Really?
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   Oh, and now that you're back, could you answer my previous questions please?

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                      I spelled those out.  You refused to acknowledge them and answered instead with more questions.  Now you must spell your "reasonable concerns" out for further dialogue to take place.

                      replyreport
                      1. 59

                         tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                         When you talked about rape and 'turning people gay'? Really? I got the impression you were merely being facetious about those, and you dismissed the other as a "ploy" without elaborating further. Then you left...
                         
                         
                         
                         ...and still haven't answered my other questions.

                         replyreport
27. 79

    livelongerposted 15 years ago

    Yes, I'd like to hear what "reasonable concerns" you mean. Again, please be specific.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Ok, just tell me if you really, honestly cannot possibly think of any potential problems with having openly homosexual people serving in the armed forces and I'll tell you.
       
       I have a strong suspicion that a lot of people here are avoiding the obvious because they for some reason feel they cannot talk about this issue in anything but absolute terms lest they betray their principle.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          livelongerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          "Potential problems" is different from "reasonable concerns." This difference was paramount when desegregating the armed forces. Could you have imagined "potential problems" when black and white soldiers were allowed to serve side by side, and were those "potential problems" good reason to prevent desegregation?

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             It most certainly was a concern at the time, and racial hostility among those serving continues to be a serious issue in the armed forces to this day. I do believe desegregating the armed forces was necessary, and any such change will carry with it problems at least in the first. However, something to think about (just think about - you don't have to be afraid of losing your 'tolerant' status!) is that homosexuals do not and never will represent the percentage of the population, in and out of the military, that non-white people do, thus making it likely that their acceptance by their peers and successful integration may be a longer and more difficult task than desegregation was (to the extent that desegregation can be considered 'finished' to this day). Look at the problems women still have in the military, and they represent 50% of the population!

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                And btw, my bf, who was an officer in the army, says when privates are trained, it is a goal that all the discrimination crap be driven out of them by TRAINING, so they learn to think as a team.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   "A goal" for sure, but to this day there are still many racial problems in the military (as surely there are in the population at large). Shouting, "it doesn't matter!" doesn't change that and doesn't make it better. I'm not sure why so many seem so terrified of speaking in anything other than simplistic absolutes. Don't want to taint the ideological purity that being a lib requires? I dunno.
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   And when are you going to answer my questions from before?

                   replyreport
             2. 79

                livelongerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Regardless of the problems....allowing women to serve was the right thing to do.
                
                If you want to argue numbers (i.e. minorities don't deserve equal rights unless they comprise a certain arbitrary percentage of the population), how do you feel about the ADA? Disabled people are a tiny minority - why should we as a society try to accommodate them in transportation, building access, etc.?

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   I agree, though the issue of combat is still an open one.

                   replyreport
                2. 59

                   tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   Who said that? Not me.

                   replyreport
             3. 60

                Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Sarah Palin

                replyreport
28. 0

    Denno66posted 15 years ago

    Getting poked in the showers. Getting stuck in a foxhole with someone who fantasizes about you.......that kinda stuff?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I find it hard to believe that many people seriously worry about that sort of thing. However, having members of an extremely small minority that could reasonably be expected to be percieved of with great hostility by a large number of the people they are expected to serve with in an organization might be detrimental to the cohesiveness - and hence the effectiveness - of that organization. Since we are talking about an organization that absolutely cannot accept any loss of effectiveness in fulfilling its role, this is a reasonable consideration. Social justice is not, and cannot be, the primary concern of the military. Now, maybe it would work out just fine in the long run (taking a long enough view, I suspect it would), but it is unrealistic to ignore the extremely great likelihood that at least in the first there would be a number of disruptive problems caused by the decision to allow openly homosexual people to serve in the armed forces. Ignoring this because of what some people think the world should be like is irresponsible. An honest discussion will at least consider it given the importance of what the military does for all of us.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          livelongerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          First, this is one of the first relatively-long form responses I've seen from you. You are usually given to quick one-line sneering snipes.
          
          I don't know what you mean by "extremely small minority" - do you have figures on what percentage of our armed forces are gay/lesbian?
          
          And, regardless, unreasonable hostility to gays/lesbians (yes, probably very much of the paranoid-fear-of-shower-sex type you dismiss) is not the sort of thing that should stop the military from upholding high standards for itself. Polls I've seen have shown a large majority of military personnel have no issues serving alongside gay/lesbian people. So why is a "right thing to do" reform being held back based on the fear of the sentiments of a bigoted minority?
          
          In terms of numbers: keep in mind 13,000 service members have been expelled from the military, at a cost of over $350 million.

          replyreport
29. 78

    Uninvited Writerposted 15 years ago

    I honestly don't see what is a problem about having gay persons in the military...I should add, openly gay persons...

    replyreport
30. 0

    Denno66posted 15 years ago

    So, my comment was off the mark?

    replyreport
31. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    Haha.  lol.  Yeah.  Turns out one of my closest college room mates was lesbian (I always kinda knew it), but she never turned me gay or anything, near as I can tell.
    
    In fact, out of fear of how others would perceive her, she never had any relationship until a few years ago.  I'm sure they'd get married if they were allowed it.

    replyreport
32. 60

    redemption86posted 15 years ago

    In england we are equal to hetro's in every way. Gay people are allowed in the armed forces. And gay marraige (civil partnership) is legal.
    I have read this debate and have to say im quite shocked and upset that some people can still be of the opinion that because someone is gay that they must fancy you and are going to jump on you the first chance they get. Would you still be of the same opinion if you where serving in afganistan and a gay man or lesbian saved your life? I think that People need to be dragged into the 21st century, kicking and screaming and realise that gay people are not just living life looking for their next fuck. We all have a role to pay in society, weather we are gay, straight, bi or alien. I would feel extremely sorry for you if you needed a doctor, but guess what he happens to be gay, do you trust his jugement or is he just trying to get into your pants? There are loads of situations where you will need the help of a gay person. So accept that we are all equal, and in lots of cases gay people might actually do a better job than straight people.

    replyreport
    1. 79

       livelongerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Not quite. Gay couples can only have a "civil partnership," not a marriage. In the U.S., we have had an aversion to the "separate but equal" fallacy.
       
       That said, gays are certainly far closer to true equality in the UK than in the US.

       replyreport
    2. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Because they are gay? Like what?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          redemption86posted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I didnt mean because they are gay, I ment that someone might do a better a job and they might be gay.

          replyreport
33. 78

    Uninvited Writerposted 15 years ago

    Well, obviously those who have a problem with it will need to grow up and be punished by the military if they do not do their job properly. If they are more concerned about if someone next to them is gay or black, or whatever, than the enemy then they are not doing their job properly.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Well it's nice and easy for you to say that, but in the meantime those people (who would probably be unwelcome at your cocktail parties) are currently the ones protecting your right to say it. Pretending it's all simple just strikes me as disingenuous.

       replyreport
34. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    OK, bah.  So when is the last time you spent time around 18,19,20,21 year olds, TK?
    
    Not all -- but many -- are more accepting of gay/trans/lesbians than ever before.  And, ironically, many people already somewhat know when another person is gay already.  Those incidences of prejudice are probably already there under "don't ask, don't tell" in the military.
    
    Incidentally, I also had a lesbian girl who was interested in me once (not my roommate).  When it was clear I was hetero sexual and not interested in her, she certainly didn't press the point. 
    
    I do not understand the big deal.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Almost everyday.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       Are you ever going to answer my questions from before?

       replyreport
    2. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       If that's true, then that is a big deal.

       replyreport
35. 67

    Greek Oneposted 15 years ago

    Who cares who sleeps with who?
    
    Let every person find their own meaning of love and happiness.

    replyreport
36. 71

    Ralph Deedsposted 15 years ago

    It strikes me that to argue, as TKsensai has been doing, that there are too many homophobes in the military who would object or feel uncomfortable is a pretty poor argument against stopping the discrimination. Identical arguments didn't stop Truman from signing an executive order desegregating the military. At that time some argued that this would pose problems because so many of the white officers and enlisted men would object to living and eating and fighting along side blacks. The military was integrated with few problems despite these racist or, as TK says, "practical" objections. The same will be true when Obama stops pussy-footing around a few racist, Christian fundamentalist generals and follows through on his campaign promise to end don't ask, don't tell.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       You expected something more logical from that source?

       replyreport
       1. 71

          Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Ha! Nope.

          replyreport
37. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    This is too weird TK....I saw you went back and edited your posts.  Sorry, I'm just not that interested in anything personal about you...other than to make the occasional joke about it.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       No, I didn't. Are you going to answer the questions, or just drop more personal insults and leave again?

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Friendlywordposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Having fun going in circles?
          
          Gay, and Blacks, and Women should serve proudly in OUR military.
          
          "Social justice is not, and cannot be, the primary concern of the military."
          
          Funniest thing...I heard a woman saying those exact same words a few years ago during a congressional hearing on gays in the military. She talked about the Cohesiveness of the troops...she even talked about how basically,  integrating the troops was such a shock to the military when Blacks  were let in; we should never put the armed forces through that kind a trauma again
          
          I say, if there are still people in the military that think they are going to be raped in a shower by a gay man, if they think a gay man is going to jump in a fox hole with them with a dress on, if they think two gay men are going to drop to the ground and start having sex in the middle of a battlefield; they are not fit to serve in the army of the People of the United States. They are a minority of bigots, and racist, and homophobes, are the Armed Forces of OUR Country would be better and stronger without them. Throw them out!
          
          Did you know our troops in Afghanistan cannot communicate with the people of that country because all of the gay interpreters were thrown out of the military?  The  troops can't tell people in these villages that they are there to help them.  They can't ask those villagers where al-Qaeda is hiding. Our troops are dying because of this Minority of people in the military that  want to keep the best equipped soldiers from serving their fellow troops and helping to keep them alive. Throw out the people that are causing the problem. Potential Problems/Reasonable Concerns solved.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             You're a little late. We've been over this.

             replyreport
38. 71

    Ralph Deedsposted 15 years ago

    Gay marriage threat.
    
    http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Threat-of-Gay-Marriage

    replyreport
39. 59

    Stan Kposted 15 years ago

    Should gays/lesbians be afforded equal rights?
    
    In a word: yes

    replyreport
40. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago

    No. Let's see...No. Let me reconsider.....No. Let me ask the computer and the computer says.........No. So the answer is No.

    replyreport
41. 51

    rialeeposted 15 years ago

    Being gay or lesbian is NOT a choice..Its just the way it is... Your are just born like this.
    My child is not second class because she is lesbian... nor is her sister any better because she is heterosexual. they are both equal..just different. Same as the disabled child I work with..JUST different!!!
    Being Bi-sexual is a choice BUT if we want to we should be able to live in this world and not hide from others. People fought in the wars for our freedom and YET we still treat people as though they are not as good /second class. Even money does not change the way I feel about meeeee. I love myself and I know others do to so why can't gay people be in marriage or the military or the circus or whatever they so desire.
    Oh and for the Christians, it says in the bible... Jesus ate with beggars, prostitutes and thieves...if its ok for him its ok for me.

    replyreport
42. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago

    There is no evidence that supports your position. It's a deviate sexual behavior and nothing more.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Friendlywordposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Poking a cow in your field is deviate sexual behavior. Homosexual sex is just as natural as heterosexual sex. Birds and bees have homosexual sex. How could it be anything but natural?

       replyreport
43. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago

    Magnets are proof that opposites attract.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Hehehehe. I guess you meant this tongue-in-cheek!

       replyreport
       1. 0

          sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I was grip'in!

          replyreport
44. 75

    Bard of Elyposted 15 years ago

    It seems a strange question to be asking as it implies that they don't have equal rights!

    replyreport
45. 59

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/28746

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Why the unrelated link?
       
       You still did not answer the question either.
       
       Why are you scared of homosexuals?

       replyreport
       1. 59

          tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Related link, and no fear, thanks.

          replyreport
46. 0

    Denno66posted 15 years ago

    Okay, so Gays are bad?

    replyreport
47. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 15 years ago

    Stop playing with each other and you'll enjoy the rights we all share. Who ever the gay militant is go ahead and turn me in, ya putz!

    replyreport
48. 68

    AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years ago

    A man should be allowed to marry a tree stump if he wants. I mean, there are two types of marriage, and there have been for a freakin' long time: state marriage and religious marriage.
    
    A mosque, temple, synagogue or church can refuse to marry anyone they want; it's called freedom of religion; a catholic school can fire a teacher for getting a divorce - why the heck not, indeed? Sounds fine to me. If you want to teach as a divorcee, teach in a state school.
    
    But the *state* should marry any two people that petition it. Why the heck not.
    
    America's founding fathers insisted on the separation of church and state to stop the abuses of the church as had existed in Europe. Just like they threw out the king for the same reason. So the ideal of America is NO RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT.
    
    But it is also preservation of religious freedom, which is why so many religious groups came to America -- to get away from Europe.
    
    Don't mix these things up: America showed the world the way on this -- don't dilute this great achievement.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Wrong! It was their intention that the state doesn't establish a national religion.

       replyreport
       1. 68

          AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Wrong???? You're telling me that America was *not* founded on the principle of separation of church and state??? I am talking about the *United States* of America. Is there another America you guys are all in, and all this time I've been posting to a bunch of people who are not even in the place I assumed they were???
          
          The great achievement of America was that its founders said, Geez, look at the crap that Europeans have had to put up with the Pope, and Henry the Eighth, and God knows who else, and then they had all these GD kings, queens, and dukes, and whatnot. Well, no more!! I mean, surely this was a great leap forward in human progress, wasn't it! Look at the money poor old Britain has to waste on the Queen and her entourage...

          replyreport
          1. 0

             sneakorocksolidposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             The founders didn't want the state to dictate what church you could attend and since we can attend any we choose, there's your seperation. Don't listen to the liberals, hell, they pray to granola!

             replyreport
             1. 68

                AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Right, exactly, so there IS a separation... I am very confused... (though I am not sure about listening to liberals, I thought this was a basic fact about the Founding Fathers.. very confused..)

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   Bizarre Neocon reading about what separation of church and state actually means. I've heard it before.

                   replyreport
                   1. 68

                      AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                      But it's not bizarre: they just stated what I said a different way -- I am going to be bald if I stay on this site too much longer...
                      
                      (I have a friend up here from Tucson, by the way -- know her? )

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                         No!  I'm in N. Arizona.  Big difference, lol
                         
                         And they mean (I believe) the constitution says there was to be a separation of religions (OK to worship God as you choose), but not an official separation of any church and the state.

                         replyreport
49. 61

    eoveryposted 15 years ago

    Depends on what you mean by equal rights.  They have the same rights have everyone else does.  What rights do you emply?  We all have the same rights.

    replyreport
50. 58

    thetfinposted 15 years ago

    Also, to those of you discussing this, there is a difference between a separation of Church and State and a separation of religion and politics. Church and State are physical entities and their separation refers to the separation power that one has over the other. In England there was at the time of the revolution (and there still is to a lesser degree, I believe) a sort of state sponsored religion known as the Church of England (remember that king, Henry VIII, making himself head of his own religion?). The founding fathers of the United states sought to create their Government of a different model, but it was not their intention to imply by their separation of Church and State that personal, religious beliefs had no place in politics.
    Religion and politics are ideas. There is no such separation of ideas in America--that would be rather absurd and counter to so many principles the founders held.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Public schools and other institutions, ie, also freedom from discrimination based on religiously held beliefs.
       
       Your reading is in the minority, thank God, .

       replyreport
       1. 58

          thetfinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             It is a sport to give sneako 'flak,' not that I see what you are saying here is in fact the truth.  (Could be your ego is showing inherent in your last paragraph, between the lines).
             
             And no, I implied no such thing about one's beliefs not dictating votes.  That would be very self-conflicting, wouldn't it?  I must say that I may not be confident in your ability to interpret my words through a clear lens.   This seems to be a lot about semantics--something I notice is prevalent when I post as a female, basically.

             replyreport
             1. 58

                thetfinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                I warned you! We're all in danger now!
                
                As far as your observation on semantics, I'm sure you're probably right. Sometimes I get hung up on the littlest things...
                Your comment on its prevelance when you post as a female did not make any sense to me, however. Care to alleviate my ignorance?

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   I've argued with you before.  I didn't notice the 'hang ups on little things' previous to this under the pseudonym.  But, certainly, that could be my mistake.

                   replyreport
    2. 68

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Well, this makes sense, as I assume that many of them believed in God, though, come to think of it, if memory serves, weren't a lot of them Deists, rather than Christians (God never intervenes in human affairs...)?

       replyreport