2% of the population is gay

[Plasmaball]

No it was a good answer. You just dismiss it because it isnt the answer you want. That and the fact that you're stupid.

nobody is bending over backwards for these people. People are accessing the situations and judging the fact that these policies are not needed anymore. Not allowing gays to be open in the military was simply bigoted and not needed.

Blacks at this moment in time are 10-12% of the population and yet we felt the need to bend over for them to fight for our nation or get married to white folks.

Yeah actualy people are being bent over for these people. People are being forced to accomodate their needs. People are being forced to do business with them against their beliefs.
You just dont want to hear that or pretend it isnt' true.

nope...

 

[Plasmaball]

Why even bother to bring it up here, Plasma. The gay bashing usual suspects just have one more opportunity to preach their hate and bigotry. It is absoluetly nexecssary to their self esteem to have someone to look down upon.

because i found what LGS said to be amusing. How can these people get that up in arms over 2% of the population. I knew their answers before they even posted.

No, you didnt. You assumed their answers and then twisted or dismissed ones that deviated from your pre-arranged script.
IOW you acted like a total liberal.

nothing you've stated is new. i look forward to your ilk dying off

 

[RandallFlagg]

So wait, one guy got reassigned while over 10,000 (on the other end of the spectrum) were discharged?

Now, is that what you call a strong argument?

The only "argument" I'm making is that speak out now - and watch what happens. Your "career" in the military will be over. Those fudge packers that were discharged - can sue for relief.

Open your mouth about a subordinate being punished too harshly for DISAGREEING with fags - and you lose your career.

If you can't discern the difference, then I don't know what to tell you....

Your example is someone speaking out AGAINST a fellow soldier, which is an action that causes disunity amongst a group and probably not a good thing for an army division.

My example is someone having the ability to telling the truth and speak on their OWN life with honesty (instead of being forced to lie when it comes to the topic of significant other).

If you can't discern the difference, then I don't know what to tell you...

Oh, I see. You're the moronic fool who classifies "soldiers" as "Officers". And, you're wrong again. The AIRMAN in question was speaking out against a POLICY you uneducated twit.

So, to encapsulate: It's perfectly FINE for one Service member to engage in oral or anal sex with another Service Member of the same sex, but it is a punishable offense for a Service member to speak out against the policy that allows it.

Gotcha!


Brave new world you have there sonny!

 

[KevinWestern]

OK, that's 10k "soldiers", not officers. So right there you've contradicted your post.
Second, my contention is that people got kicked out for being gay because they wanted to get kicked out. I see nothing to contradict that in your post.

Admittedly, I don’t have any evidence. However, neither do you (haven’t seen anything but your opinion). Stalemate I suppose.

Congress voted for the war and they acted constitutionally. Are you really comparing a constitutional exercise of power to an unconstitutional one? It wouldn't surprise me. The wookie-suiters dont exactly live in reality-land.

Again, if Congress voted to go to war with Mexico because it wanted to 'take all of their resources' would you still support it IF it was voted on? I believe the American public was mislead on the reasons why we were going to war with Iraq (ie something that didn’t exist), and someone needs to be held accountable for that mistake.

Question; did you/did you not support the Iraq War in 2003, and do you still uphold that same opinion?

 

[Luissa]

OK, that's 10k "soldiers", not officers. So right there you've contradicted your post.
Second, my contention is that people got kicked out for being gay because they wanted to get kicked out. I see nothing to contradict that in your post.

Admittedly, I don’t have any evidence. However, neither do you (haven’t seen anything but your opinion). Stalemate I suppose.

Congress voted for the war and they acted constitutionally. Are you really comparing a constitutional exercise of power to an unconstitutional one? It wouldn't surprise me. The wookie-suiters dont exactly live in reality-land.

Again, if Congress voted to go to war with Mexico because it wanted to 'take all of their resources' would you still support it IF it was voted on? I believe the American public was mislead on the reasons why we were going to war with Iraq (ie something that didn’t exist), and someone needs to be held accountable for that mistake.

Question; did you/did you not support the Iraq War in 2003, and do you still uphold that same opinion?

I tried to find someone, and found this. I find this interesting.

"Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The financial costs to the U.S. military for discharging and replacing gay service members under the nation's "don't ask, don't tell" policy are nearly twice what the government estimated last year, with taxpayers covering at least $364 million in associated funds over the policy's first decade, according to a University of California report scheduled for release today."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302373.html


So allowing them to serve openly is saving us millions. Hmmmm

 

[Spoonman]

Ok so no real serious answer yet..

How are 2% a threat to society...feel free to leave out silly hyperbole

Why even bother to bring it up here, Plasma. The gay bashing usual suspects just have one more opportunity to preach their hate and bigotry. It is absoluetly nexecssary to their self esteem to have someone to look down upon.

because i found what LGS said to be amusing. How can these people get that up in arms over 2% of the population. I knew their answers before they even posted.

For the most part these people are on the extinction line. They will die off and us younger folks will accept these societal changes.

The whole idea about how enraged they get over 2% is hilarious.

yet you libs are up in arms over 1% of the population. hilarious

 

[KevinWestern]

Oh, I see. You're the moronic fool who classifies "soldiers" as "Officers".

Big f’ing deal, Randall. It’s a mistake – I admit. Didn’t realize you were a dickhead (thought you were capable of a back and fourth without insult), and glad to see you taking the civility of our conversation down a notch....

And, you're wrong again. The AIRMAN in question was speaking out against a POLICY you uneducated twit.

Twit? Thanks again. Didn’t your mom/pops ever teach you how to respectfully engage with other individuals, or did you just grow hostile with age?

Is this the FIRST time in military history that someone was reprimanded for speaking out against an official policy? And are you up in arms EVERY TIME this occurs, or only when the policy is regarding gay soldiers?

So, to encapsulate: It's perfectly FINE for one Service member to engage in oral or anal sex with another Service Member of the same sex, but it is a punishable offense for a Service member to speak out against the policy that allows it.

Gotcha!

Not sure what the policy is on actual intercourse amongst servicemen/women, but I would like that policy to be applied in the same fashion to both straight and gay couples. If two gay officers have sex in an inappropriate situation, then discharge their asses - I'm fine with that.

Brave new world you have there sonny!

My generation’s just coming of age; the world is currently as YOU’VE left it. Looks like we'll be sorting out this debt situation for about the next 100 years. I'm up for the challenge.


.

 

[Luissa]

Why even bother to bring it up here, Plasma. The gay bashing usual suspects just have one more opportunity to preach their hate and bigotry. It is absoluetly nexecssary to their self esteem to have someone to look down upon.

because i found what LGS said to be amusing. How can these people get that up in arms over 2% of the population. I knew their answers before they even posted.

For the most part these people are on the extinction line. They will die off and us younger folks will accept these societal changes.

The whole idea about how enraged they get over 2% is hilarious.

yet you libs are up in arms over 1% of the population. hilarious

And why is that?
Be honest now.

 

[Spoonman]

because i found what LGS said to be amusing. How can these people get that up in arms over 2% of the population. I knew their answers before they even posted.

For the most part these people are on the extinction line. They will die off and us younger folks will accept these societal changes.

The whole idea about how enraged they get over 2% is hilarious.

yet you libs are up in arms over 1% of the population. hilarious

And why is that?
Be honest now.

you tell me. I'm still waiting for a valid reason why

 

[rrb017]

I believe that people do not have a fear of accepting it, but a fear of it being incorporated into their everyday life, as it is today. I am not sure if the 2% is accurate but whether it is or not, the lifestyle is praised by the media and in movies and film. Actors, actresses, singers and other performers performers have considerable influence due to their talents, and when they are shown on the television promoting their beliefs, it seems as if there is no one promoting the beliefs of the other 98% because those are not the type of people given the opportunity to share their beliefs with the public. A prime example is last night on MTV's Video Music Awards Macklemore won an award for the social message of his song "Same Love" and when he was accepting his award, he proclaimed his beliefs to the millions of viewers. It just appears to be unfair because the only people given a platform to speak with millions of people at a time are the ones who have the same opinion.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Oh, I see. You're the moronic fool who classifies "soldiers" as "Officers".

Big f’ing deal, Randall. It’s a mistake – I admit. Didn’t realize you were a dickhead (thought you were capable of a back and fourth without insult), and glad to see you taking the civility of our conversation down a notch. Like a child....

BS. You jump on "10,000......" like you have found some big news. Get your facts straight before you jump sonny. Isn't that what you liberals always tell conservatives?? Hmm?

And, you're wrong again. The AIRMAN in question was speaking out against a POLICY you uneducated twit.

Twit? Thanks again. Didn’t your mom/pops ever teach you how to respectfully engage with other individuals, or did you just grow hostile with age?

Yes, yes they did. So did my College Professors. However, I have learned over the years that there is RARELY any DEBATE with leftists. RARELY.

Is this the FIRST time in military history that someone was reprimanded for speaking out against an official policy? And are you up in arms EVERY TIME this occurs, or only when the policy is regarding gay soldiers?

I have no clue. Doesn't matter. This Senior Airman has lost his career (after re-assignment - his career is over) because he spoke against a Junior Airman being harshly reprimanded for speaking out against the policy. THAT IS THE SENIOR AIRMAN'S JOB. TO LOOK OUT FOR HIS SUBORDINATES.

So, to encapsulate: It's perfectly FINE for one Service member to engage in oral or anal sex with another Service Member of the same sex, but it is a punishable offense for a Service member to speak out against the policy that allows it.

Gotcha!

Not sure what the policy is on actual intercourse amongst servicemen/women, but I would like that policy to be applied in the same fashion to both straight and gay couples. If two gay officers have sex in an inappropriate situation, then discharge their asses - I'm fine with that.

Well, the Military apparently isn't.

Brave new world you have there sonny!

My generation’s just coming of age; the world is currently as YOU’VE left it.

Yeah. I have to cop to that. And what the hell are YOU going to do to reverse this nonsense that you have been saddled with? You ready to step up? Or are you pleased with this destruction of the country that YOU will be left with?

 

[KevinWestern]

Yeah. I have to cop to that. And what the hell are YOU going to do to reverse this nonsense that you have been saddled with? You ready to step up? Or are you pleased with this destruction of the country that YOU will be left with?

I'm not happy. I try to be as active as I possibly can in local politics, I read, watch the news, and currently thoroughly dislike the President for more reasons than you can imagine. Just heard today that the POTUS is likely going to appoint Larry Summers as the next Head of the Fed, which is unsettling to say the least given he's an insider who shares much of the responsibility for the recent economic collapse our WORLD went through just a few short years ago, and the inevitable one to come (because the system remained unchanged, and the culprits went unpunished).

I've not run for office or anything like that, lol, but I like to do my part and educate many of my Obama supporting friends to think twice about supporting the man.

How to reverse the non-sense?
I think it's simple in concept but difficult in execution; stop voting garbage into Congress and into the office of the Presidency. You put in garbage and you will get garbage in return (not hard to understand). I think we need to place emphasis on the family unit and education, as well as a reduction in the millions of "distractions" (like TV, sports) that have seemed to become "our lives" over the course of maybe 50-60 years. Overall, people need to get themselves at least marginally informed, and stay away from the major news networks.

Most of all, we need to stop bickering over nonsense. The "divided we fall" saying will hold true, I'm certain.

 

[Politico]

Wow, if I watch some TV-channels I think there are 40 % of population gays.

Well, yeah...if you are watching LOGO.

And NBC, CBS, ABC Syfy, BBC, HGTV....anything from channels 2 through 1000.

Speaking of that, Bob and Tom are looking for a new home on House Hunters.....

 

[RandallFlagg]

Yeah. I have to cop to that. And what the hell are YOU going to do to reverse this nonsense that you have been saddled with? You ready to step up? Or are you pleased with this destruction of the country that YOU will be left with?

I'm not happy. I try to be as active as I possibly can in local politics, I read, watch the news, and currently thoroughly dislike the President for more reasons than you can imagine. Just heard today that the POTUS is likely going to appoint Larry Summers as the next Head of the Fed, which is unsettling to say the least given he's an insider who shares much of the responsibility for the recent economic collapse our WORLD went through just a few short years ago, and the inevitable one to come (because the system remained unchanged, and the culprits went unpunished).

I've not run for office or anything like that, lol, but I like to do my part and educate many of my Obama supporting friends to think twice about supporting the man.

How to reverse the non-sense?
I think it's simple in concept but difficult in execution; stop voting garbage into Congress and into the office of the Presidency. You put in garbage and you will get garbage in return (not hard to understand). I think we need to place emphasis on the family unit and education, as well as a reduction in the millions of "distractions" (like TV, sports) that have seemed to become "our lives" over the course of maybe 50-60 years. Overall, people need to get themselves at least marginally informed, and stay away from the major news networks.

Most of all, we need to stop bickering over nonsense. The "divided we fall" saying will hold true, I'm certain.

Look, one thing I've learned over my lifetime is that these "presidents" come and go. Hell, I had to endure that idiot Jimmy Carter.

There has been a direct "seed-change" in this country. Liberals actually believe that they are a "force" in American politics (and they are). Why? Americans, for the last 20-25 years have been working like crazy (both parents) to merely put food on the table, Frankly they (1) haven't had time to "get involved" the way they did at one point and (2) the Liberals (who, believe it or not, used to be decent people) have adopted a Marxist-Communist view point with this latest generation of slackers that have flooded our society from colleges and universities. Their idea of "society" is something akin to early Nazi Germany. If they could, Barry would be appointed Supreme Commander and never leave. So much for history repeating itself, huh?

Next - the conservatives have completely lost their collective way. They have fallen prey to the crap that the left throws out there "Either become like us - or perish". Frankly, I see a liberal, I see a clown who needs his ass spanked. Nothing more than spoiled children who have been given too much leeway.

Conservatives need to return to their "roots" with financial conservatism, societal conservatism and moral conservatism. Quit trying to "please everyone all the time". You simply can not do it. Next - stop taking the damned "high road" ala John McCain. That old farts time was over 25 years ago. Be willing to get down and dirty with these idiots. You MUST fight their fire with a BIGGER FIRE until this nonsense is stamped out.

The Republicans MUST find candidates that will STAND for something - and stick to it. This country is in dire straits. This economy is holding on - but barely (contrary to what the left is telling you). It will soon be tested hard. Once Barry stops this policy of "propping up the fake economy" by buying bonds - to the tune of 85 BILLION per month - this thing is going to come to a head. I hope you are prepared.

Whoever the next slob that inhabits the White House is going to face something that will make 2008 look like a picnic. It's coming.

Now, in the words of Mother Abigail from Stephen King's "The Stand"...


Are YOU ready to make YOUR stand??

 

[Plasmaball]

Why even bother to bring it up here, Plasma. The gay bashing usual suspects just have one more opportunity to preach their hate and bigotry. It is absoluetly nexecssary to their self esteem to have someone to look down upon.

because i found what LGS said to be amusing. How can these people get that up in arms over 2% of the population. I knew their answers before they even posted.

For the most part these people are on the extinction line. They will die off and us younger folks will accept these societal changes.

The whole idea about how enraged they get over 2% is hilarious.

yet you libs are up in arms over 1% of the population. hilarious

are you fucking stupid or something? you already stated this and i said no, no i am not.

 

[bodecea]

No it was a good answer. You just dismiss it because it isnt the answer you want. That and the fact that you're stupid.

nobody is bending over backwards for these people. People are accessing the situations and judging the fact that these policies are not needed anymore. Not allowing gays to be open in the military was simply bigoted and not needed.

Blacks at this moment in time are 10-12% of the population and yet we felt the need to bend over for them to fight for our nation or get married to white folks.

Yeah actualy people are being bent over for these people. People are being forced to accomodate their needs. People are being forced to do business with them against their beliefs.
You just dont want to hear that or pretend it isnt' true.

Sounds like the kind of complaints I used to hear against having to associate with or do business with or accomodate people in wheelchairs.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, that's 10k "soldiers", not officers. So right there you've contradicted your post.
Second, my contention is that people got kicked out for being gay because they wanted to get kicked out. I see nothing to contradict that in your post.

Admittedly, I don’t have any evidence. However, neither do you (haven’t seen anything but your opinion). Stalemate I suppose.

Congress voted for the war and they acted constitutionally. Are you really comparing a constitutional exercise of power to an unconstitutional one? It wouldn't surprise me. The wookie-suiters dont exactly live in reality-land.

Again, if Congress voted to go to war with Mexico because it wanted to 'take all of their resources' would you still support it IF it was voted on? I believe the American public was mislead on the reasons why we were going to war with Iraq (ie something that didn’t exist), and someone needs to be held accountable for that mistake.

Question; did you/did you not support the Iraq War in 2003, and do you still uphold that same opinion?

You have no evidence because there is no evidence. I have many active, former and retired servicemen among my customers and I ask about this periodically. Pretty much all of them have told me that unless someone was just asking for a discharge it didnt happen. But as long as someone behaved himself no one was looking to cashier him out of the military. And even the one guy who did make a big deal about it, some airman who won the Bronze Star in Vietnam, he got a general discharge so kept his benefits.


Your hypothetical about Mexico once again confuses good policy with valid policy. Would I support an annexation of Mexico? Probably not. But if Congress voted for it then it was a legitimate policy decision, even if I think it's wrong. That's your problem: every policy you disagree with is criminal. Which supports my contention that there's little difference between liberals and narco-libertarians.

 

[KevinWestern]

You have no evidence because there is no evidence. I have many active, former and retired servicemen among my customers and I ask about this periodically. Pretty much all of them have told me that unless someone was just asking for a discharge it didnt happen. But as long as someone behaved himself no one was looking to cashier him out of the military. And even the one guy who did make a big deal about it, some airman who won the Bronze Star in Vietnam, he got a general discharge so kept his benefits.

Interesting, thanks.

Your hypothetical about Mexico once again confuses good policy with valid policy. Would I support an annexation of Mexico? Probably not. But if Congress voted for it then it was a legitimate policy decision, even if I think it's wrong. That's your problem: every policy you disagree with is criminal. Which supports my contention that there's little difference between liberals and narco-libertarians.

No, I don't think every policy I disagree with is criminal (where'd you draw up that idea?). I was specifically speaking about a act of war that was qualified over evidence that didn't exist.

Barely 5 hours after the 9/11 attack, Rumsfeld was throwing around the idea of invading Iraq:
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 - CBS News

With zero evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks then and now, I think we should take a deeper dive into who and what was pushing so hard for us to get into that country. Why? Because hundreds of thousands of people died, and are no longer existing because of that decision. Because the evidence that was put forth as FACT by our United States officials turned out to be NON-FACTUAL after the war was initiated. You have to be incredibly naive to assume everyone pushing to invade Iraq had noble intentions; especially given the enormity of our defense budget and how many politicians rely on donations from that sector to remain in office.

There are many policies that I disagree with that I wouldn't consider "criminal", however when it comes to the Iraq War I feel as if we were intentionally misled, and intentionally coaxed and I think someone aught to be held responsible.

Who are you trying to defend here?


.

 

[Pheonixops]

If this is true based on someone here stating it. Why all the worry about being forced to accept it? Are you that worried about 2%? Regardless if you feel its abnormal, a choice or whatever. How can 2% Really be that mich of a threat to your way of life. At 2% the odds of you running into a gay person are rather slim.

Well slim if you dont actively go seeking it.

Well, if in fact, 2% is true, that means 98% of the population ISN'T gay. So why then are we, the 98%, bending over backwards to accomodate these "people"?

We have allowed them to change the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Military and have just began to see the effects of gay "marriage".

All of tht for a lousy 2% of the population. Makes sense to me.

Yeah, that's pretty much what those bigots were saying about 10% of the population during the Civil Rights Era and before the Civil Rights Era. Wow...........really?

 

[Pheonixops]

Homos live a lifestyle that is in opposition to mainstream culture. If they want equal rights, then why not allow bigamy in all states?

It's a sinful lifestyle

-Geaux

Aren't you part of the crowd who wants limited government and government to get out of Our business? Aren't you in favor of religious freedom? I have no problem with polygamy, didn't they have that in the Bible? If consenting adults want to engage in polygamy or same sex marriage; more power to them, it doesn't affect me and my heterosexual monogamous marriage. At one time inter-racial marriage was against the law in not a few states.