Is there something wrong with not propagating the species? Do you call lifelong bachelors, priests, childless couples, etc. "depraved"?

Once the appellation of " Gay " is used it changes EVERYTHING.
Show me an asexual Gay clergy or Monk.
Gays are using a abomination of rationale to justify their
sex leaning.
Being Gay,actually means nothing more than being a Homosexual,
which used to mean having sex relations with same gender.
Gays wanna dumb-down that to make it seem their almost
saintly.Which is THE biggest crock to perpetrate the Earth since
Tupperware.

Riiiight. Yeah, I'm convinced. :p

Once the appellation of " Gay " is used it changes EVERYTHING.
Show me an asexual Gay clergy or Monk.
Gays are using a abomination of rationale to justify their
sex leaning.
Being Gay,actually means nothing more than being a Homosexual,
which used to mean having sex relations with same gender.
Gays wanna dumb-down that to make it seem their almost
saintly.Which is THE biggest crock to perpetrate the Earth since
Tupperware.

Why don't you answer her question?

Riiiight. Yeah, I'm convinced. :p

I'm not tryin to appear merely simple.
But,actually,in life,the most simple and direct causations are the
most viable.
Don't let some fool you into thinking that a more complicated
reason exists.That is mere juxtaposition of desperation.

I'm not tryin to appear merely simple.


It's not working. :)

Just thought I'd give my two cents on this issue

People should be held responsible for their actions, they are not "victims to their society"... if that were the case, every person born into poverty and crime would grow up to be a criminal, and anyone who succeeded from that upbringing would be wrong.

You can disapprove of being gay and still love them. I disapprove of murderers but still love them. As painful of an experience as it might be, if somebody murdered my parents... I would forgive them once I had a clear head.

Interesting to hear how people can be so into the Darwinism... species genetically altar over time by those with favorable traits moving on... and then try to say that "gay traits" are the same. It's like Darwin saying all birds are equal, some just don't have big enough beaks.. but we will feed them anyway. Homosexuality.. i think... is a defect, just as those who are born into retardation... Does that make them bad or wrong? No.. I work the special needs very much, and I certainly accept anyone who is gay, it really doesn't even bother me at all. Hell, I'm 5'9"... I was a good basketball player, but my height didn't allow me to excel enough to go into college basketball. I was defective in that area... yes me, I am defective.. but I am valuable in other areas and ways.. some that I am probably not even aware of.

Just thought I'd give my two cents on this issue

People should be held responsible for their actions, they are not "victims to their society"... if that were the case, every person born into poverty and crime would grow up to be a criminal, and anyone who succeeded from that upbringing would be wrong.

You can disapprove of being gay and still love them. I disapprove of murderers but still love them. As painful of an experience as it might be, if somebody murdered my parents... I would forgive them once I had a clear head.

Interesting to hear how people can be so into the Darwinism... species genetically altar over time by those with favorable traits moving on... and then try to say that "gay traits" are the same. It's like Darwin saying all birds are equal, some just don't have big enough beaks.. but we will feed them anyway. Homosexuality.. i think... is a defect, just as those who are born into retardation... Does that make them bad or wrong? No.. I work the special needs very much, and I certainly accept anyone who is gay, it really doesn't even bother me at all. Hell, I'm 5'9"... I was a good basketball player, but my height didn't allow me to excel enough to go into college basketball. I was defective in that area... yes me, I am defective.. but I am valuable in other areas and ways.. some that I am probably not even aware of.

One would think that if homosexuality is a defect, then homosexuals would be protected under the law much in the same way handicapped people get special parking places and access ramps. Yet, somehow, they're being denied a right for very flimsy reasons.

Everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that includes marrying whomever the hell you want.

Homosexuality, however, is considered immoral by much of society (since sodomy is criminal behavior in many states), much like bigamy and pornography....i.e. it's a form of sexual deviancy (assuming a homosexual actually acts on his
interests).

Just a point of reference, sodomy is something that I'm willing to bet that the majority of the people viewing this thread are guilty of, as defined by dictionary.com...

Sodomy
-noun

1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.

I've never met a homosexual who believes that homosexuality is a choice for anyone. In fact, it seems to me that the only people who act like homosexuality is a choice are those who believe it's wrong.Yes i think you may be on to something here!!!

Remember about ten years ago when a gay guy took a straight guy on the Jenny Jones show to confess a crush he had one him?

After the show the straight dude went to the gay guys house and shot him dead. I'm fairly sure the gay guy would have never confessed his love to the straight guy if he understood he was going to get shot.Yes i remember that quite well...

Very sad.... I wonder if he hadnt of done it on LIVE TV if the guy would have still shot him.. (Maybe he was totally embarrased)

It's not working. :)

I know ...I know.I'm talkin Turkey and Leftists don't like that approach.
They want fancy-schmancy speeches like Obama gave,and compare
it to the - " I Have A Dream " speech,rife with tones of pulling onself
up from a bootstrap mentality of hobgoblins and church mice.
Replete with heartstrings,gently pullin on gords and pumpkins,
with sprinkling doses of sugar & spice and all things nice.
All well and good,but changes nothing,explains very little and is
merely attempting to placate the Mases,thru distortion and
vice,made more manageable by Politically Correct device.
Some things in life boil down to Right & Wrong and No grey areas.
Ya can't bake a pie,w/o actually bakin one.
Ya can't have a cake w/o yeast to rise.
Ya can't brew a beer w/o yeast also.
Leftists want to forgo yeast,a mandatory ingredient in many things,like
Beer & Bread.They want to use added doses of sweetness to cover
up flaws.That is not the way.
Life is more more demanding than mere sugar cookies or a Twinkie.
Dig Daddio.

I know ...I know.I'm talkin Turkey and Leftists don't like that approach.

How is the current subject one of political ideology?


They want fancy-schmancy speeches like Obama gave,and compare
it to the - " I Have A Dream " speech,rife with tones of pulling onself
up from a bootstrap mentality of hobgoblins and church mice.

From you I'd settle for a brief moment of coherence.


Some things in life boil down to Right & Wrong and No grey areas.


How does that belief apply to the subject at hand?

BTW, think you can manage to answer DF's question yet?

In case you're unclear as to what the question is I'll repeat it:

"Is there something wrong with not propagating the species? Do you call lifelong bachelors, priests, childless couples, etc. "depraved"?

Just thought I'd give my two cents on this issue

People should be held responsible for their actions, they are not "victims to their society"... if that were the case, every person born into poverty and crime would grow up to be a criminal, and anyone who succeeded from that upbringing would be wrong.

You can disapprove of being gay and still love them. I disapprove of murderers but still love them. As painful of an experience as it might be, if somebody murdered my parents... I would forgive them once I had a clear head.

Interesting to hear how people can be so into the Darwinism... species genetically altar over time by those with favorable traits moving on... and then try to say that "gay traits" are the same. It's like Darwin saying all birds are equal, some just don't have big enough beaks.. but we will feed them anyway. Homosexuality.. i think... is a defect, just as those who are born into retardation... Does that make them bad or wrong? No.. I work the special needs very much, and I certainly accept anyone who is gay, it really doesn't even bother me at all. Hell, I'm 5'9"... I was a good basketball player, but my height didn't allow me to excel enough to go into college basketball. I was defective in that area... yes me, I am defective.. but I am valuable in other areas and ways.. some that I am probably not even aware of.

Good observation.However there are consistent Dounting Thomas' like
Vile and Dharma who want Definitive proof for all things in controversy.
Which is rather juvenile.Grown-ups have to learn the art of compromise
which pervades all aspects in life.
I doubt there is any single factor or trait that determines Gayness.
It may be a combination of factors,PLUS a strong urge to familarize
onself with those leanings.Like many things in Life.
Like Burt told Fast Eddie in - The Hustler - ... " What do ya think,Fats
was Born knowin how to drink ! ".

Grown-ups have to learn the art of compromise
which pervades all aspects in life.


I agree, but how does this fit in with your belief that some things "just boil down to Right & Wrong and No grey areas"?

Also, how much are you willing to compromise when it comes to your fundamental happiness? Would you be willing to give up some of your rights regarding marriage? If not, how can you reasonably ask others to do what you are unwilling to do yourself?

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]

Being Gay,became Politics,as soon as the Gay Lobby decided to use
Parades and then peer pressure and then Mayors like Gavin in
San Franny to influence ALL of the state,regardless of proclivity.
Being Gay also was instrumental in San Fransico adopting a
policy of NO ARMED SREVICES Recruitment centers,if and
when applicable and also NOT using former Naval Vessels as
Historic monuments for Tours.Like the ole Queen Mary in Florida.
Gays have now infleunced the institution of Marriage.
I have proilly brought up the words Nuns,Priests,and Monks
more than any other herein.
Of course I think it is a good alternative for one to live a life
devoid of propagating,as in celibacy.
But not propagating,and still havin Sex,like Homosexuals,and
then conveniently adopting a rationale that likens itself
to celibacy is an affront to decency of thought and action.
Gays are whiny,little cry baby degenerates.They are not Celibates.
There is ABSOLUTELY Nothing saintly about a Gay lifestyle.
They provide little in the way of a Social good.
Their Mission is rife with fraud.

I agree, but how does this fit in with your belief that some things "just boil down to Right & Wrong and No grey areas"?

Also, how much are you willing to compromise when it comes to your fundamental happiness? Would you be willing to give up some of your rights regarding marriage? If not, how can you reasonably ask others to do what you are unwilling to do yourself?

Gays have NO right to Marry.And even less Right to make demands.
End of debate.No need for Rationalization.

Just to be clear here, you are definitely not quoting me here.


Being Gay,became Politics,as soon as the Gay Lobby decided to use
Parades and then peer pressure and then Mayors like Gavin in
San Franny to influence ALL of the state,regardless of proclivity.

Sorry if my question was unclear. Allow me to rephrase.

How can you define the topic of this thread as a right/left issue?


Being Gay also was instrumental in San Fransico adopting a
policy of NO ARMED SREVICES Recruitment centers,if and
when applicable and also NOT using former Naval Vessels as
Historic monuments for Tours.

I think you're mistaken here. On many levels. The issue with the recruitment centers was a protest against the war in Iraq, and the measure that was voted in doesn't ban recruiting centers in SF.


Like the ole Queen Mary in Florida.

That might make sense if the Queen Mary was berthed in Florida, but since it's berthed in Long Beach California, it rather negates your premise.


Gays have now infleunced the institution of Marriage.
I have proilly brought up the words Nuns,Priests,and Monks
more than any other herein.
Of course I think it is a good alternative for one to live a life
devoid of propagating,as in celibacy.
But not propagating,and still havin Sex,like Homosexuals,and
then conveniently adopting a rationale that likens itself
to celibacy is an affront to decency of thought and action.

The only similarity between homosexuality and celibacy is the likelihood of producing offspring. It was mentioned because you made a statement implying that being gay was "wrong" because it can't produce offspring. Please pick a stance and stick to it, you're dancing all over the place.


Gays are whiny,little cry baby degenerates.

And people who say such things are worse.


They are not Celibates.

No one said they were. Or even implied they were. Try not to drift off topic too much please. :)


There is ABSOLUTELY Nothing saintly about a Gay lifestyle.
They provide little in the way of a Social good.
Their Mission is rife with fraud.

There's nothing "saintly" about anyone's lifestyle, and I'd hate to see the government withhold someone's rights because they determined their lifestyle to be "unsaintly". I daresay none of us would have any rights in that event.

Grown-ups have to learn the art of compromise
which pervades all aspects in life.

And:

Gays have NO right to Marry.And even less Right to make demands.
End of debate.No need for Rationalization.

It's amazing how quickly you contradict yourself. How do you decide what to have for breakfast?

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]That might make sense if the Queen Mary was berthed in Florida, but since it's berthed in Long Beach California, it rather negates your premise.

Oh Geez.I guess when I went for a Tour aboard the Queen Mary,stationed
in S.Florida,right behind a huge VW import center as a kiddie,I was
dreamin.

I'm not gonna nitpick every little tertiary tidbit concerning this
bidness.That's yer way of Rationalizing and keeping the discussion
alive.It's like having a group of 5th graders crying in class till
the Nun,in charge,decides to give them what they want.
No Nun,I ever knew would buy into that way of running a classroom.
Whine On ... Dear Chap.

Oh Geez.I guess when I went for a Tour aboard the Queen Mary,stationed
in S.Florida,right behind a huge VW import center as a kiddie,I was
dreamin.

Perhaps. Or maybe you were hallucinating. Or perhaps you were aboard her before she was retired in 1967. Or maybe it was different ship and you're simply mistaken.

"After her retirement in 1967, she steamed to Long Beach, California on the west region of the United States, where she is now permanently moored as a tourist attraction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary


I'm not gonna nitpick every little tertiary tidbit concerning this
bidness.

In other words, you don't mind making untrue statements you can't back up.


That's yer way of Rationalizing and keeping the discussion
alive.

It's my way of trying to steer the discussion back on topic. :)


It's like having a group of 5th graders crying in class till
the Nun,in charge,decides to give them what they want.
No Nun,I ever knew would buy into that way of running a classroom.
Whine On ... Dear Chap.

You have a nasty habit of projecting your own faults upon others. So far in this discussion you've stated over and over "gayness is just wrong", and when asked to justify that statement you retreat into repetition. Perhaps if you repeat it often enough some might believe you, but probably not many.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]



In other words, you don't mind making untrue statements you can't back up.

*****************************************
" Natural homosexuality is somethjing pathological,it is an
arrested development. "
-- Freud { Fragments of An Analysis with Freud,1954 }

This is why Gays live in mortal fear of Freud.
They can't seem to get past his expertise in that arena.

" Natural homosexuality is somethjing pathological,it is an
arrested development. "
-- Freud { Fragments of An Analysis with Freud,1954 }

This is why Gays live in mortal fear of Freud.
They can't seem to get past his expertise in that arena.

Very amusing Fooly. I'm gay and I have no fear of Freud. As a matter of fact his views on homosexuality were rather enlightened for his day. He did believe that it represented a form of arrested development, but that's not all he had to say on the subject. Here's a letter he wrote to a mother who was concerned about her son. Note this isn't a "fragment".

(emphasis mine)


Dear Mrs. X (April 9, 1935)

I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you, why do you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.

By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of the treatment cannot be predicted.

What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed. If you make up your mind that he should have analysis with me (I don’t expect you will!!) he has to come over to Vienna. I have no intention of leaving here. However, don’t neglect to give me your answer.

Sincerely yours with kind wishes,

Freud

If you're going to use Freud to denigrate homosexuality you would do well to present his views accurately.

He'll be Coming Round the Mountain when he comes,
He'll be coming 'round the mountain when he comes { when he comes}
He'll be coming 'round the mountain
He'll be coming 'round the mountain
He'll be coming 'round the mountain when he comes { when he comes}

He'll be drivin' six white horses when he comes,etc.
Oh we'll all come out to meet him when he comes,etc.
We will kill the old red rooster when he comes,etc.
We'll be havin' chicken and dumplings when he comes,etc.
We'll all be shoutin' " Halleluja " when she comes,etc.

She > ? where the hell did that come from.?

See how silly Gays could be,if we lets em.

He'll be Coming Round the Mountain when he comes,
He'll be coming 'round the mountain when he comes { when he comes}
He'll be coming 'round the mountain
He'll be coming 'round the mountain
He'll be coming 'round the mountain when he comes { when he comes}

He'll be drivin' six white horses when he comes,etc.
Oh we'll all come out to meet him when he comes,etc.
We will kill the old red rooster when he comes,etc.
We'll be havin' chicken and dumplings when he comes,etc.
We'll all be shoutin' " Halleluja " when she comes,etc.

She > ? where the hell did that come from.?

See how silly Gays could be,if we lets em.

Why do you participate in these discussions?

Why do you participate in these discussions?
]

" The sexual life of each of us extends to a slight degree -- now
in this direction,now in that -- beyond the narrow lines imposed
as the standard of normality.The perversions are neither bestial
nor degenerate in the emotional sense of the word.They are a
development of germs all of which are contained in the undifferentiated
sexual disposition of the child,and which,by being suppressed or by
being diverted to higher,asexual aims -- by being 'sublimated' --
are destined to provide the energy for a great number of our cultural
acheivements.When,therefore,any one has become a gross and manifest
pervert,it would be more correct to say that he has remained one,for he
exhibits a certain stage of inhibited development."
-- Freud

Have you perchance read ... Krafft-Ebing's :
- Psychopatha Sexualis - ?

you know gays don't belong in the military. I remember a training exercise and I was in a trench for a third day with the same guy and when we finally were able to rotate sleep I found the guy on top of me at the bottom of the trench.

I was inbarrassed and didn't say to much but what the Fuck.

Canadianreader, that's like saying that women don't belong in the military because they might come onto their fellow soldiers. Of course I know that a lot of people still feel this way, but if you don't then you can't feel that way about gays either.

you know gays don't belong in the military. I remember a training exercise and I was in a trench for a third day with the same guy and when we finally were able to rotate sleep I found the guy on top of me at the bottom of the trench.

I was inbarrassed and didn't say to much but what the Fuck.


That doesn't prove the guy is gay though. He could have fallen over in his sleep or something.

you know gays don't belong in the military.

Of course they do, as much as anyone does anyway, perhaps even a bit more. I'd even go so far as to say that we should encourage as many gays to join the military as we can. After all, in some respects, they make better soldiers than heterosexuals.

Of course they do, as much as anyone does anyway, perhaps even a bit more. I'd even go so far as to say that we should encourage as many gays to join the military as we can. After all, in some respects, they make better soldiers than heterosexuals.

Since you demand of me to clarify and defend my claims,please
do likewise and offer your thoughts on specifially how a Gay
makes a better soldier.?

Since you demand of me to clarify and defend my claims,please
do likewise and offer your thoughts on specifially how a Gay
makes a better soldier.?
I seem to remember an ancient army, maybe that of Athens or Sparta, where gay soldiers were preferred because they would fight harder to impress the other men. I'm not sure how accurate that was, though.

Since you demand of me to clarify and defend my claims,please
do likewise and offer your thoughts on specifially how a Gay
makes a better soldier.?

From an administrative standpoint gays would tend to have fewer dependents and thus cost less to maintain. The fact that gay soldiers would be more likely not to have children would also make them more desirable to send into combat situations from a command perspective. Put bluntly, they're more expendable.

Rub-a-dub dub... Three men in a tub...

wait.. what???

From an administrative standpoint gays would tend to have fewer dependents and thus cost less to maintain. The fact that gay soldiers would be more likely not to have children would also make them more desirable to send into combat situations from a command perspective. Put bluntly, they're more expendable.
Wow, that's cold.

I seem to remember an ancient army, maybe that of Athens or Sparta, where gay soldiers were preferred because they would fight harder to impress the other men. I'm not sure how accurate that was, though.

So,that is why you quickly came to Vile's defense.?
A,kind of quid pro quo,of sorts.
It's the sort'n out that gets kinda sticky.
Mind ya.

Wow, that's cold.

Well, for what it's worth, I was attempting to look at the issue from a military perspective. I wasn't trying to make a statement about the relative value of gay and straight soldiers as humans.

Well, for what it's worth, I was attempting to look at the issue from a military perspective. I wasn't trying to make a statement about the relative value of gay and straight soldiers as humans.

You said it,so back it up er shut up thar Bubs.
Gibe as good as you get,an all.

You said it,so back it up er shut up thar Bubs.
Gibe as good as you get,an all.

I did. Perhaps you missed it.

From an administrative standpoint gays would tend to have fewer dependents and thus cost less to maintain. The fact that gay soldiers would be more likely not to have children would also make them more desirable to send into combat situations from a command perspective. Put bluntly, they're more expendable.

So,Military in the field,stop,and consider family situations when
deciding who go's on patrol or frontline duty.?
I don't tink so.
Not even a nice try.
Pretty damn lame.
What else ya got...thar Bubba.?

So,that is why you quickly came to Vile's defense.?
A,kind of quid pro quo,of sorts.
It's the sort'n out that gets kinda sticky.
Mind ya.

Fooly, Borg is my fellow admin here on allforums, and he's also become a good friend in the 4+ years I've been posting here. I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now. He's also a fine young man with a bright future ahead of him. He's told you repeatedly that he's not gay. Accept that.

I was going to ask you to explain your remark, but I suspect the response would be incomprehensible in the extreme, so I will give you a friendly warning instead...innuendo of any kind about my relationship with Borg, or his sexual orientation, is probably a bad idea. You'll get no further warnings from me on the subject, friendly or otherwise.

So,Military in the field,stop,and consider family situations when
deciding who go's on patrol or frontline duty.?

Only in rare situations.


I don't tink so.

How does one "tink"?


Not even a nice try.
Pretty damn lame.
What else ya got...thar Bubba.?

That wasn't my only point, it wasn't even my main point. Does this mean you agree that they'd be better soldiers because they'd be less expensive to maintain?

I did. Perhaps you missed it.

Well,at least I know,where Dharma got his debating skills from.

Fooly, Borg is my fellow admin here on allforums, and he's also become a good friend in the 4+ years I've been posting here. I'm surprised you haven't figured that out by now. He's also a fine young man with a bright future ahead of him. He's told you repeatedly that he's not gay. Accept that.

I was going to ask you to explain your remark, but I suspect the response would be incomprehensible in the extreme, so I will give you a friendly warning instead...innuendo of any kind about my relationship with Borg, or his sexual orientation, is probably a bad idea. You'll get no further warnings from me on the subject, friendly or otherwise.

I don't understand why you two are so touchy about certain things
bein said.? I never wished you or He,harm in any way,shape or manner.
Seems to me,a certain two,Mods,are pretty thin-skinned when it comes
to shavin too close to the collar.
I personally don't think Moderators should be so vocal,in the forums,
as you two.That shouldn't be part of Moderating.
Moderating is just that.Not being the vocal point of added controversy
or the like.
I didn't know and still don't about ANYones relationships here,
ceptin what happened at Smarty's board and a couple disgruntled
hook-ups gone bad.
I'm not here for a relationship.
I'm perfectly content with who and who not I personally cajole.

I don't understand why you two are so touchy about certain things
bein said.?

I was the only one addressing the issue, and it's not necessary for you to understand, only to accept.

I don't think you meant any harm, that's why you got a friendly warning.

Back to the topic, do you have anything to rebut my assertion that gays make preferable soldiers if only because they'd cost less?

I was the only one addressing the issue, and it's not necessary for you to understand, only to accept.

I don't think you meant any harm, that's why you got a friendly warning.

Back to the topic, do you have anything to rebut my assertion that gays make preferable soldiers if only because they'd cost less?

Being Raised and Educated as a Catholic,we try to avoid such
macabre cynical approaches to life.We are taught and firmly believe
ALL life is precious.I will admit this,however.
The Maritime practice { Remember the Titanic } of Women & Children
first,is a good rule.
I don't think Women should be used in Frontline duty during a War.
Like that little West Virginny motorpool gal {Jessica} who got
captured in the opening rounds of Iraqi Freedom.

Being Raised and Educated as a Catholic,we try to avoid such
macabre cynical approaches to life.We are taught and firmly believe
ALL life is precious.I will admit this,however.
The Maritime practice { Remember the Titanic } of Women & Children
first,is a good rule.
I don't think Women should be used in Frontline duty during a War.
Like that little West Virginny motorpool gal {Jessica} who got
captured in the opening rounds of Iraqi Freedom.

Care to answer the question I asked?

Care to answer the question I asked?

I don't believe the Pentagon,or Army War College,ever think in
those terms.Yer question is amoral and Unamerican.
Casualties are always discouraged,but cannot ever be eliminated.
Obviously you have less concern for the value of life { a soldiers }
than I do.
I will not participate in yer macabre,cynical approach to a Military
or Casualties of War.

I don't believe the Pentagon,or Army War College,ever think in
those terms.Yer question is amoral and Unamerican.
Casualties are always discouraged,but cannot ever be eliminated.
Obviously you have less concern for the value of life { a soldiers }
than I do.
I will not participate in yer macabre,cynical approach to a Military
or Casualties of War.

That's not the question.

For the third time...

Does this mean you agree that they'd be better soldiers if only because they'd be less expensive to maintain?

That's not the question.

For the third time...

Does this mean you agree that they'd be better soldiers if only because they'd be less expensive to maintain?

Soldiers are picked for their ability to work strenuously and
lug 50-75 lb. backpacks for 10 mile treks.
Their stamina.The younger the better.
A young soldier,probably isn't married yet,or has kids.
But the Military gladly gives them billiting and all kinda of free
services and food allowances.
Yes,the military had a program of early release for those seeking
their 20 year service retirement.I believe,the early payoff
was in the $27,ooo - $35,ooo range,during the mid 80's.
I believe it was for those just a year or 2 shy of 20 years service.
20 years gets 50% benefit.Most Military try to go for the
extra years,like 24,26 which is pro-rated.

Since Gays have No Dependents {legally} than it would be cheaper
than those with dependents.That's a Logistics argument.
May even play into the question should Gays be allowed Marriage,
since they could adopt dependents,more readily.
But I don't believe that Our Armed Services,view a Military with
such Expendability of life in mind.Yes,War means lives.
And it would only be prudent for decisions be made to reduce
any added or Moral risk taking on behalf of a War Machine.

you know gays don't belong in the military. I remember a training exercise and I was in a trench for a third day with the same guy and when we finally were able to rotate sleep I found the guy on top of me at the bottom of the trench.

I was inbarrassed and didn't say to much but what the Fuck.

And I'm "inbarrassed" by reading your posts, CR.

I don't know what's more profound--your spelling ("Yourselfs" is a real classic) or your viewpoints on this topic, world history, geography, and various other subjects.
Keep up the good work!

PS. Alexander the Great was gay, as was Julius Caesar (bisexual.). You're right--they have NO place in the military.

That's not the question.

For the third time...

Does this mean you agree that they'd be better soldiers if only because they'd be less expensive to maintain?
cheaper doesn't mean better. a Sherman tank doesn't cost as much as an Abrams, which would you want in your army?

cheaper doesn't mean better. a Sherman tank doesn't cost as much as an Abrams, which would you want in your army?

We're talking about soldiers, not their equipment.

On the average, a gay tank driver would cost the Army less to maintain than a straight tank driver.

We're talking about soldiers, not their equipment.

On the average, a gay tank driver would cost the Army less to maintain than a straight tank driver.

Yes,you may need to emphasis that point at least 4 more times.
Is all.

you know gays don't belong in the military.Why do you assume this??

Vilepagan can be just a good a fighter as some guy who likes Snatch!

Why does there preference have anything to do with it my friend?

Why do you assume this??

Vilepagan can be just a good a fighter as some guy who likes Snatch!

Why does there preference have anything to do with it my friend?

Well my post was about unwanted advances when I was trying to sleep. and not about your friend. This guy wasn't doing what he was supposed to do and watch my back but practical stabbed me in the back by taken advantage of my drowsiness.

And I'm "inbarrassed" by reading your posts, CR.

I don't know what's more profound--your spelling ("Yourselfs" is a real classic) or your viewpoints on this topic, world history, geography, and various other subjects.
Keep up the good work!

PS. Alexander the Great was gay, as was Julius Caesar (bisexual.). You're right--they have NO place in the military.

you given mixed messages.

I just thought the thread was about a gay soldier and I spead read and thought it was safe to tell my story.

I don't know why your ashamed unless your from Canada. Then speak up and maybe I will take a back seat alright.

I can't speak for her, but I can say that I don't find homosexuality disgusting either. But I'm not at all interested in bangin' a dude.

O.K.
But I explained exactly why I was a heterosexual. Is it possible for you to do the same?
Do you have anything to compare it to as I have done?
Explain in more detail why you're not at all interested in banging a dude.

This is called "appeal to belief". It is a logical fallacy.
Yeah I'm not sure where I was going with that. It was a stupid statement.

The fact of the matter is there is a reason for everything. I feel I'm pointing out the reason why people dont allow gay marraige.
You cant just say, God did it, when it comes to the theory of origin.
In the same token. When it comes to gay marraige, how can you simply say, "they dont like it" and leave it at that.

Where will that get any of us?

One would think that if homosexuality is a defect, then homosexuals would be protected under the law much in the same way handicapped people get special parking places and access ramps. Yet, somehow, they're being denied a right for very flimsy reasons.

Everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that includes marrying whomever the hell you want.
Thats... Only one entrance way onto this highway of thought.
Mentally disabled people are denied quite a bit of their rights. Simply because of who they are and how they think.

They're only given those rights once they can make it clear beyond doubt that they can understand what they mean. Which means anyone they may come in contact with doesn't have their rights violated by someone who is mentally ill.

I dont see where homosexuality should be treated any differently.

Canadianreader, that's like saying that women don't belong in the military because they might come onto their fellow soldiers. Of course I know that a lot of people still feel this way, but if you don't then you can't feel that way about gays either.
Maybe they should allow gays, but just have gays and women bunk together.

We'll see how well the women like it.

Mentally disabled people are denied quite a bit of their rights. Simply because of who they are and how they think.

What sort of mental disability are you referring to?


I dont see where homosexuality should be treated any differently.

Are you saying gay people are mentally ill?

Are you saying gay people are mentally ill?

Are you saying that those who are mentally ill are less deserving of things than you? Did they choose to be mentally handicapped? It seems you have a nice class system set up, Vile.

Are you saying that those who are mentally ill are less deserving of things than you?

Decka...where the hell did you get that?


Did they choose to be mentally handicapped? It seems you have a nice class system set up, Vile.

What are you talking about?

your question of "are you saying gay people are mentally ill?" makes it sound as if being mentally ill is a damning, horrendous thing. Plus, it's quite a vague term. Everyone is "mentally ill" in some regard. We all have our quirks... it just seemed as if you are trying to bait someone into actually SAYING gay people are "mentally ill"... and then going on some kind of crusade, verbally smashing them for such a comment.. when being mentally ill isn't the end all. I work with mentally handicapped children, and they sure are more "human" than the normal kids. They just live, they get excited, they get enthusiastic. Meanwhile, the cool and prissy kids worry about getting too excited because of how they would look...

your question of "are you saying gay people are mentally ill?" makes it sound as if being mentally ill is a damning, horrendous thing.

I don't follow your logic at all, Decka. I asked a question.


Plus, it's quite a vague term.

Only when used vaguely. Inviolable used the phrase "menatlly disabled" which is why I asked: "What sort of mental disability are you referring to?"


Everyone is "mentally ill" in some regard. We all have our quirks...

Speak for yourself. ;)


it just seemed as if you are trying to bait someone into actually SAYING gay people are "mentally ill"...

I'm trying to get him to clarify what he meant.

Like that little West Virginny motorpool gal {Jessica} who got
captured in the opening rounds of Iraqi Freedom.

She wrote a book and was paid very handsomely I imagine for her 'ordeal'. In the majority of wars, many female civilians have been through the same situation if not worse,and dont get a simple mention. Heck hundreds of women in this country each day face the same horror,and dont get a single acknowledgment.

Miss Lynch was given a very nice discharge package,and stands to make millions on book and movie deals. Another female,a black cook age 19 was in the same unit as Jessica and taken hostage as well. I am sure she must of suffered the same horror. But for what ever reason she was never mentioned. There was not dramatic rescure,or book deals.... she was discharged as well,and given qa 300 dollar a month for two years discharge package

There are alot of controversy surrounding her story,and the story the pentagon put out. Alot of things dont add up. She was used by the US as a poster girl to drum up support and outrage back home,as this unpopular war was just getting under way.

Miss Lynch and her story is not a good example of why females,should/should not be on the front line.

By the way.... she was not on the 'front line' so to speak she was toward the rear of a 8000 vehicle,100 mile supply convoy. Her unit misread an out of date map and went the wrong way,ending up in the middle of hostile territory.

We're talking about soldiers, not their equipment.

On the average, a gay tank driver would cost the Army less to maintain than a straight tank driver.
and a Mexican tank driver would cost even less.

and a Mexican tank driver would cost even less.

Is there a point you're trying to make?

Is there a point you're trying to make?
that your "gay soldiers cost less" point is rather silly.

that your "gay soldiers cost less" point is rather silly.

Well if you feel that way please tell us why, rather than making even sillier remarks about Mexicans. I wait with bated breath for your explanation.

She wrote a book and was paid very handsomely I imagine for her 'ordeal'. In the majority of wars, many female civilians have been through the same situation if not worse,and dont get a simple mention. Heck hundreds of women in this country each day face the same horror,and dont get a single acknowledgment.

Miss Lynch was given a very nice discharge package,and stands to make millions on book and movie deals. Another female,a black cook age 19 was in the same unit as Jessica and taken hostage as well. I am sure she must of suffered the same horror. But for what ever reason she was never mentioned. There was not dramatic rescure,or book deals.... she was discharged as well,and given qa 300 dollar a month for two years discharge package

There are alot of controversy surrounding her story,and the story the pentagon put out. Alot of things dont add up. She was used by the US as a poster girl to drum up support and outrage back home,as this unpopular war was just getting under way.

Miss Lynch and her story is not a good example of why females,should/should not be on the front line.

By the way.... she was not on the 'front line' so to speak she was toward the rear of a 8000 vehicle,100 mile supply convoy. Her unit misread an out of date map and went the wrong way,ending up in the middle of hostile territory.

I agree with everything you wrote.But in the Middle East,where
Women are treated like chattel,it is very scarey,the thought of
Women-in-Combat as Prisoners.The Lynch story helped to reinforce
that thought.There is No denying that,is my main point.
Is all.

The Jessica Lynch thing... yes... Well we all know about the media's obsession with cute young white chicks who are kidnapped/raped/killed. Little Jenny Hoffman goes missing and the media are all over it, but if it's little Jenny Sanchez, who the hell cares?

Well if you feel that way please tell us why, rather than making even sillier remarks about Mexicans. I wait with bated breath for your explanation.
because i felt like it.

because i felt like it.

We have enough posters who like to clot threads up with irrelevant nonsense, we don't need more.

We have enough posters who like to clot threads up with irrelevant nonsense, we don't need more.

Isn't the entire point of a message board,to let posters converse,
sometimes with nonsense,and iron out their own POV's.
Why are you being such a bully.?

We have enough posters who like to clot threads up with irrelevant nonsense, we don't need more.
then are you going to stop implying that the DoD should be looking at how much a soldier costs instead of how they do their job? if they really wanted to save a buck, they could just freeze promotions on initial enlistments, because an E-1 makes a lot less than an E-5.

then are you going to stop implying that the DoD should be looking at how much a soldier costs instead of how they do their job?

I think they should consider both, and if two soldiers can do an equal job at soldiering, as a taxpayer I'd like the DoD to hire the less expensive one.


if they really wanted to save a buck, they could just freeze promotions on initial enlistments, because an E-1 makes a lot less than an E-5.

I suppose they could.

Pagan made his intentions clear, and they are pure. I grilled him pretty good on those intentions, and he seems to be quite honorable in seeking the meaning of claims. My applause and respect to Vile..

Pagan made his intentions clear, and they are pure. I grilled him pretty good on those intentions, and he seems to be quite honorable in seeking the meaning of claims. My applause and respect to Vile..

Hay,I worked claims for almost 2 years.Over,short and damage.
Plus all the udder stuff,like Kafkesque-type file clerk crap.
BTW ... What is an Immoderator.?
An impertinent Moderator.
Or an Immodestly pert orator.

I don't know why your ashamed unless your from Canada.

:@@: Next stop----The Twilight Zone........:@@:

What sort of mental disability are you referring to?
Any that obstructs rational thought.



Are you saying gay people are mentally ill?
No. I am saying that I don't think homosexuals understand exactly why there are heterosexuals who can only be heterosexual.

Which would hinder their judgement and possibly put them in a position to be violating someone elses rights.

Any that obstructs rational thought.

I see.


No. I am saying that I don't think homosexuals understand exactly why there are heterosexuals who can only be heterosexual.

I have to completely disagree with you there. I think most homosexuals are a lot more aware of their sexuality and its causes than your average heterosexual.


Which would hinder their judgement and possibly put them in a position to be violating someone elses rights.

In what way could I, as a homosexual, violate your rights as a heterosexual, without committing a crime?

I have to completely disagree with you there. I think most homosexuals are a lot more aware of their sexuality and its causes than your average heterosexual.
How would that help them to see why someone is heterosexual. I can tell you exactly how a Ford runs and if you're a Ford man still wouldnt know why you're a Ford man.

In what way could I, as a homosexual, violate your rights as a heterosexual, without committing a crime?
Through emotions. Lots of different emotions.
How many times have you heard men talking about their sexual conquest?
Sex is an ego thing for guys big time and that doesn't change just because you're gay. Very few men are wise enough to understand that bragging rights aren't the only thing that matter.

There's also love interest, you cant tell me there are no homosexuals that wouldn't be woundering how to tell a straight interest that they want to be more then friends.

Just emotions. Emotions on a vast level.

How would that help them to see why someone is heterosexual.

Well, I think gays in general have given a lot more thought into the origins of their sexuality, and personally, I don't think those origins are different in any significant way for heterosexuals. In both cases I think it's largely predetermined. I just think there's fewer heterosexuals who've given a lot of contemplation to the origin of their heterosexuality, it's just accepted for what it is.


Through emotions. Lots of different emotions.
How many times have you heard men talking about their sexual conquest?

Many times, although it's almost always been straight guys doing the bragging.


Sex is an ego thing for guys big time and that doesn't change just because you're gay.

True, but gays don't seem to talk about it as much.


Very few men are wise enough to understand that bragging rights aren't the only thing that matter.

There's also love interest, you cant tell me there are no homosexuals that wouldn't be woundering how to tell a straight interest that they want to be more then friends.

Just emotions. Emotions on a vast level.

I'm still unclear how I could violate your rights by talking, or by showing emotion. Can you explain?

[QUOTE=Vilepagan



True, but gays don't seem to talk about it as much.

You can't possibly be serious;who in the know would buy that
statement fer a sinlge nano-second.
I had a friend who worked at a new porn parlor,years ago.
We were the same age,liked the same music,sports and enjoyed
crackin each other up.He was ON Methadone,bein a former
Junkie,of almost 20 years.I found out he also had to be a
player,when he did some time.A Bisexual.
We got a big kick out of all the traffic that a Porn Parlor and their
Peeps,procure.
One thing is God-damned certain.There wasn't s single Gay,that I
made a point of conversing that DIDN'T talk about their Sex urge.
It was THE driving force in their life.That and gossip about other
Gays and who's The Biggest Gay on the block.
Ya Dig ?

You can't possibly be serious

Very. Of course, I never made it a point to hang out in sex shops, but if I were to do so, I wouldn't be shocked that whoever was there was talking about sex.

Very. Of course, I never made it a point to hang out in sex shops, but if I were to do so, I wouldn't be shocked that whoever there was talking about sex.

I don't wanna ruin this thread,over trivial stuff.But I was amazed
at all those who were gay.Not just the obvious Tranny types.
But those my age,who dressed like me { kinda preppy }.
The one thing that seperates ALL Gays is their mindset and
proclivity.They seem very preoccupied,like Freud diagnosed,as
if still juveniles.My Proof.The way they thought about current
events or cause celebre.They always adopt a juvenile,very
simplistic view of Politics and what ever latest news is breaking.
As if they can't be bothered too mush,beyond the superficial.
Is all.

Very. Of course, I never made it a point to hang out in sex shops, but if I were to do so, I wouldn't be shocked that whoever was there was talking about sex.
:confused: what the heck else is their to do in Milwaukee?

:confused: what the heck else is their to do in Milwaukee?

I don't know whether it's true or not, but local legend says that Milwaukee has more bars per capita than any other city in the US.

I don't know whether it's true or not, but local legend says that Milwaukee has more bars per capita than any other city in the US.
every town with more that 2 schools has that rumor.

:confused: what the heck else is their to do in Milwaukee?

Drink Beers.Make Motorcycles.
Get a Biker Mama.
Tell her yer seriously think'n a being Gay.
From all the beers and Leather stuff.
Mind ya.

every town with more that 2 schools has that rumor.

Perhaps, but there are neighborhoods in Milwaukee, residential neighborhoods mind you, that have a tavern on every corner. It would be my guess that if we're not #1, we're not far behind.

Perhaps, but there are neighborhoods in Milwaukee, residential neighborhoods mind you, that have a tavern on every corner. It would be my guess that if we're not #1, we're not far behind.

So,yer tellin us yer from The Land of Harley.?

I don't know whether it's true or not, but local legend says that Milwaukee has more bars per capita than any other city in the US.
It's La Crosse, Wisconsin, actually, according to Guinness.

It's La Crosse, Wisconsin, actually, according to Guinness.

Guiness discontinued their Beer records long ago.
Andre the Giant Was and will remain THE biggest quaffer of
Suds to ever walk the Earth.He even made little Hulk Hogan go and
fetch Beer for him in Japan,when they toured.Would crumple
up an empty tall boy,on their Wrestling Bus,and fling it at the Hulk,
just to let him know,he's runnin low.

So,yer tellin us yer from The Land of Harley.?

Born and raised here.

It's La Crosse, Wisconsin, actually, according to Guinness.

There you go, destroying perfectly good legends. ;)

There you go, destroying perfectly good legends. ;)

I always heard it was Kenosha! :mad:

I agree with everything you wrote.But in the Middle East,where
Women are treated like chattel,it is very scarey,the thought of
Women-in-Combat as Prisoners.The Lynch story helped to reinforce
that thought.There is No denying that,is my main point.
Is all.

well then fools you are absolutely right if you were referring the likelihood of females being targeted for such horrible treatment as the reason they shouldn't be on the front line.

i am not sure IMHO if that is enough to keep them out of battle,but your point is very valid.

Well, I think gays in general have given a lot more thought into the origins of their sexuality, and personally, I don't think those origins are different in any significant way for heterosexuals. In both cases I think it's largely predetermined. I just think there's fewer heterosexuals who've given a lot of contemplation to the origin of their heterosexuality, it's just accepted for what it is.
Thats a good thought actually. A very understanding one. Perhaps hetersexuals dont have to put as much thought into it because they're not as confused to begin with.
I know overwhelmingly why I'm a heterosexual and no time had to be spent wondering why.
The misconception you're betraying here could be a violation of a heterosexuals rights in and off itself. Simply because you believe you have to spend time sorting out your own sexuality doesn't mean everyone else does to. So, why bother to convince them that it does?

Dont get me wrong. I have "family" friends who are homosexual, I know what they go through and my heart goes out to them. Personally I cant recall a single conversation I've seen you have that wasn't intelligent and well thought out.
I believe homosexuals are quite capable of understanding why heterosexuals are who they are. I just don't think it's something thats thought about.
I think homosexuals are so caught up in helping the world to see that they're just people trying to live life, that they've missed placed how to do that.
They're not addressing the issue of why heterosexual people have a problem with them. Well, O.K. they are. But not the way it should be addressed.
They're not wondering why people dont agree with homosexuality, they're under the impression they simply have to get people to accept it.


Many times, although it's almost always been straight guys doin
the bragging.

In your world, in mine I've heard several gay guys brag about the men they've had and the sexual encounter's with ther straight guys are the most prized


I'm still unclear how I could violate your rights by talking, or by showing emotion. Can you explain?
I think I've done a good job explaining it above. In the, why homosexuals "think" people need to examine their sexuality. Part of the conversation. Once again, because you're confused about yours doesnt mean I'm confused about mine and if thats something you cant understand then you need to rethink why you think someone is heterosexual.

Thats a good thought actually. A very understanding one. Perhaps hetersexuals dont have to put as much thought into it because they're not as confused to begin with.
I know overwhelmingly why I'm a heterosexual and no time had to be spent wondering why.
The misconception you're betraying here could be a violation of a heterosexuals rights in and off itself. Simply because you believe you have to spend time sorting out your own sexuality doesn't mean everyone else does to. So, why bother to convince them that it does?

Forgive me for not being clear. I've never been "confused" about my sexuality, at least not since puberty, and IMO, gays contemplate their sexuality more than straights simply because straights haven't been made to feel their sexuality is "wrong" in some way by society at large. They've never been in the position of having to wonder why others find their lifestyle offensive.


Dont get me wrong. I have "family" friends who are homosexual, I know what they go through and my heart goes out to them. Personally I cant recall a single conversation I've seen you have that wasn't intelligent and well thought out.

Thank you.


I believe homosexuals are quite capable of understanding why heterosexuals are who they are. I just don't think it's something thats thought about.

I agree.


I think homosexuals are so caught up in helping the world to see that they're just people trying to live life, that they've missed placed how to do that.

What would you suggest?


They're not addressing the issue of why heterosexual people have a problem with them. Well, O.K. they are. But not the way it should be addressed.
They're not wondering why people dont agree with homosexuality, they're under the impression they simply have to get people to accept it.

Well, from having had many conversations with straight people on the subject of homosexuality, the most common complaints is "it's just wrong", or "it's gross". This, IMO, is similar to my answer when someone asks me why I don't eat lima beans. I don't like lima beans, so I don't eat them. I can't tell you why I don't like them, just that I don't. I accept that others do, even though I will never "understand" why people would eat such things, but I wouldn't think of asking those that do to stop consuming them based on my personal distaste for the offending legumes. In other words, my best recourse is to just accept that others don't share my opinion about them, and let them eat as many as they like.

Also, as to this "dislike" that some straight people have towards the idea of being gay, that's something for the straight person to work out, and not something that gays should be expected to explain to them.


In your world, in mine I've heard several gay guys brag about the men they've had and the sexual encounter's with ther straight guys are the most prized

Well, since there's a lot more straights in the world than gays, I suspect quantitaively that straights brag more than gays, however, I'm willing to concede that bragging isn't strictly a straight thing.


I think I've done a good job explaining it above. In the, why homosexuals "think" people need to examine their sexuality. Part of the conversation. Once again, because you're confused about yours doesnt mean I'm confused about mine and if thats something you cant understand then you need to rethink why you think someone is heterosexual.

As I said previously, I think straights are straight for the same reason gays are gay...because that's part of who they are.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]Forgive me for not being clear. I've never been "confused" about my sexuality, at least not since puberty, and IMO, gays contemplate their sexuality more than straights simply because straights haven't been made to feel their sexuality is "wrong" in some way by society at large. They've never been in the position of having to wonder why others find their lifestyle offensive.


***************************************
I've got you Boxed-in,finally.
On 2 counts.How do you know if Gays actually contemplate
or are driven by sexuality.?
And at what age does EITHER a Gay or a Straight,know when
Society { Or pressure driven by such } is right or wrong.
Simply put,you are making huge,juvenile leaps about both
what a human feels internally,which are very personal and subjective
and whatever Societal dictums warrant the negation of such.
You are merely making excuses,and excuses that are not very
well thought out.