- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,218
- Reaction score
- 1,859
- Location
- DFW, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Define "broke". I would hardly call the system we have in place "flawless".It ain't broke, so you wanna fix it?
:sinking:
Define "broke". I would hardly call the system we have in place "flawless".It ain't broke, so you wanna fix it?
No need to generalize.Why can't the pro homosexual crowd ever argue their positions without degenerating into calling everyone that doesn't agree with them names?
Well stop being a "fag basher".Its also clear many of you are not reading what people are saying you're just quoting them and bashing for applause. Or worse intentionally distorting what they said.
I made comments that pretty much ignored the homosexuality of this entire thing..and what did I get in reply??..that I am now in favor of beating up homosexuals.
Why can't the pro homosexual crowd ever argue their positions without degenerating into calling everyone that doesn't agree with them names?
I made comments that pretty much ignored the homosexuality of this entire thing..and what did I get in reply??..that I am now in favor of beating up homosexuals.
.
Ok I'll connect the dots for you, genius. What I am saying is that just because a person may not be able to help their attraction does not mean they should follow up on it. I believe homosexuality to be immoral.I do not have to make you "seem" like anything. You dig your own grave, don't point the finger at me.
Let's try further elaborating, because stating that pedophiles cannot help their attraction to children does little to convince me that we should keep gays out of the military. I'm going to need you to connect the dots here and formulate an argument.
Roger that.
Ok I'll connect the dots for you, genius. What I am saying is that just because a person may not be able to help their attraction does not mean they should follow up on it. I believe homosexuality to be immoral.
What I am saying is that just because a person may not be able to help their attraction does not mean they should follow up on it.
I believe homosexuality to be immoral.
Here we are at 59 pages and the positions aren't getting any clearer. To those who still oppose lifting the ban, what is the single best argument you believe you've made here?
If your argument is that gays should not serve in the military because it is, in your opinion, "immoral" to be gay, then it would appear we are done here.Ok I'll connect the dots for you, genius. What I am saying is that just because a person may not be able to help their attraction does not mean they should follow up on it. I believe homosexuality to be immoral.
Honestly, I think the best argument is themselves. If they can't accept them here. What makes you think they would there? Don't you think, that if. 20% of the military population had a problem with this, that it would cause problems?
I suppose the best way to answer that question would be to test it in real life.
And, if fact, the policy has been tested in real life and we already know the answer. The British don't have a problem with gays in the military. The Australians don't have a problem with gays in the military. The Israelis don't have a problem with gays in the military.
So no... our military won't have a problem either.
:2wave:
However. Would it be the time to do so in the middle of two wars, or should this be done peace time?
Look what happened to gay discharges during the Iraq conflict...