• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

bicycleman said:
Prove what, that the anus is used for anything other than expelling waste?
Click to expand...

How the heck did you come to that conclusion? The anus is used for expelling waste and as a sexual orifice. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals use it for the latter purpose, as do several species of primate, particularly Makak monkeys and Bonobo chimps. Of course, that is determining the use of something by how it is observed in nature. Did you have some other standard by which you came to the conclusion of how it is suppose to be used? Furthermore, I don't claim it is moral just because it is observed in nature, but I will claim that unless you can conclusively prove there is some blueprint cast by some grand designer that indicates its only function is to expel waste, then you are **** out of luck. Pun intended.
 
CriticalThought said:
How the heck did you come to that conclusion? The anus is used for expelling waste and as a sexual orifice. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals use it for the latter purpose, as do several species of primate, particularly Makak monkeys and Bonobo chimps. Of course, that is determining the use of something by how it is observed in nature. Did you have some other standard by which you came to the conclusion of how it is suppose to be used? Furthermore, I don't claim it is moral just because it is observed in nature, but I will claim that unless you can conclusively prove there is some blueprint cast by some grand designer that indicates its only function is to expel waste, then you are **** out of luck. Pun intended.
Click to expand...

Just because monkeys do it, doesn't mean humans have to do something that deviant.
 
samsmart said:
Because most of those Log Cabin Republicans are fiscal conservatives or paleo-conservatives, not social or religious conservatives. Just because a person is a conservative doesn't mean they agree with all other conservative philosophies.
Click to expand...

I would say almost the opposite. The true conservatives are the Goldwater fiscal conservatives that believed in fiscal conservativism, but overall small government.

Todays "Conservative" is a big brother/big government social conservative that wraps itself in a blanket of fiscal conservatism.
 
disneydude said:
Todays "Conservative" is a big brother/big government social conservative that wraps itself in a blanket of fiscal conservatism.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you keep believing that.

Nothing can stop someone that's gots his religion.
 
towski said:
Child molestation is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Why should a homosexual have to "keep his mouth shut"?
Click to expand...

If he wants to announce what he is, more power to him, but let him realize the repercussions. If he can't handle it, he needs to keep his mouth shut or go for treatment. He ain't normal.
 
towski said:
Prove it. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a sexual request.:2razz:

The tests were flawed. You don't test 15 homosexuals, find 4 with this supposed gene and conclude that since 27% have this gene, it is a trait possessed by all homosexuals. They didn't even test heterosexuals. They only tested homosexuals. Their samples were too small. This is how you cheat using flawed statistical analysis and flawed conclusions.
 
bicycleman said:
If he wants to announce what he is, more power to him, but let him realize the repercussions. If he can't handle it, he needs to keep his mouth shut or go for treatment. He ain't normal.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to know that you of all people get to decide what is and is not normal and who should and should not get treatment. I was under the impression that sociologists were the ones who determined what constituted the normal range of human behavior and that psychologists got to determine whether certain behaviors interfered with a person's ability to lead a happy and functional life in society. But hey, you know considerably more than those people because...well I'm not sure why you think you know more than people who have dedicated years and years of their life to studying human beings. I guess it is because you have an invisible voice in your head that tells you to believe a 1700 year old book that contradicts itself. That seems to typically be the reason why, but I'm quite happy that you get to be so self righteous and judgmental of your fellow human beings because that is exactly the kind of man Christ was...or not, but at least you get to pretend that you know what you are talking about even though we all know you are deluded and ignorant.
 
bicycleman said:
Sounds like a sexual request.:2razz:

The tests were flawed. You don't test 15 homosexuals, find 4 with this supposed gene and conclude that since 27% have this gene, it is a trait possessed by all homosexuals. They didn't even test heterosexuals. They only tested homosexuals. Their samples were too small. This is how you cheat using flawed statistical analysis and flawed conclusions.
Click to expand...

This is all I am going to say, because I am not a scientist:

I know two gay men. I have known them their whole lives, because they are in my extended family. I can assure you that we (my family) all knew from a very, very early age that "something wasn't right", if you get my drift. When they both "came out" later in life, it didn't shock any of us. We had known for years.

I think that lends some validity to the "gay people are born gay" argument. Just my opinion.
 
kansaswhig said:
This is all I am going to say, because I am not a scientist:

I know two gay men. I have known them their whole lives, because they are in my extended family. I can assure you that we (my family) all knew from a very, very early age that "something wasn't right", if you get my drift. When they both "came out" later in life, it didn't shock any of us. We had known for years.

I think that lends some validity to the "gay people are born gay" argument. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I too have known sissy guys that were sissy all their lives, but it all started when they had an overbearing father who pushed them away and a doting mother. Then there were the guys with no older brothers, who had an older sister as the older sibling to look up to. They started wanting to play dressup as girls. Then there were the sissy kids who grew up to be heterosexual with 9 kids. How do you explain that, since similar observations were contained in all kinds of psychology books?
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm happy to know that you of all people get to decide what is and is not normal and who should and should not get treatment. I was under the impression that sociologists were the ones who determined what constituted the normal range of human behavior and that psychologists got to determine whether certain behaviors interfered with a person's ability to lead a happy and functional life in society. But hey, you know considerably more than those people because...well I'm not sure why you think you know more than people who have dedicated years and years of their life to studying human beings. I guess it is because you have an invisible voice in your head that tells you to believe a 1700 year old book that contradicts itself. That seems to typically be the reason why, but I'm quite happy that you get to be so self righteous and judgmental of your fellow human beings because that is exactly the kind of man Christ was...or not, but at least you get to pretend that you know what you are talking about even though we all know you are deluded and ignorant.
Click to expand...

Since you were the one who told me that the anus was a sexual orifice, I wouldn't believe anything you have to say or imply. Did one of your expert sociologist friends tell you that?
 
bicycleman said:
I too have known sissy guys that were sissy all their lives, but it all started when they had an overbearing father who pushed them away and a doting mother. Then there were the guys with no older brothers, who had an older sister as the older sibling to look up to. They started wanting to play dressup as girls. Then there were the sissy kids who grew up to be heterosexual with 9 kids. How do you explain that, since similar observations were contained in all kinds of psychology books?
Click to expand...

1. Don't get all emotional.
2. Based off that answer, I doubt you know any gay people.
 
bicycleman said:
Since you were the one who told me that the anus was a sexual orifice, I wouldn't believe anything you have to say or imply. Did one of your expert sociologist friends tell you that?
Click to expand...
What, because you think he's wrong about one thing, ergo, he is wrong about everything else he says?

Seriously?
 
bicycleman said:
I too have known sissy guys that were sissy all their lives, but it all started when they had an overbearing father who pushed them away and a doting mother. Then there were the guys with no older brothers, who had an older sister as the older sibling to look up to. They started wanting to play dressup as girls. Then there were the sissy kids who grew up to be heterosexual with 9 kids. How do you explain that, since similar observations were contained in all kinds of psychology books?
Click to expand...

Being gay != being a sissy. A couple of the most over the top masculine men I know are gay. I knew a guy in the navy that we all for a long time thought was gay, but his father died young, and he grew up from the age of 3 on with just his mother and 4 sisters. He was a girl magnet too I might add.
 
kansaswhig said:
1. Don't get all emotional.
2. Based off that answer, I doubt you know any gay people.
Click to expand...

As a normal heterosexual, I only associate with other normal heterosexual males. You're right. I don't know any sissy boys. The only two I ever knew about when I was growing up, died of AIDS.
 
The Mark said:
What, because you think he's wrong about one thing, ergo, he is wrong about everything else he says?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

This is not even a serious discussion to me. Frankly, it's a joke.:rofl
 
kansaswhig said:
Well this is pretty interesting...
Click to expand...

For the record I oppose DADT. I think gays should be able to serve openly.
Having said that, he agreed to a rule, and is now braking that rule. If he doesn't like it, that's fine, he shouldn't have signed on. But he did and is now subject to court martial. Until the rule is changed, which I hope is soon, every serviceman must comply with it.


Army%20Values%20Integrity.jpg
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Its the truth. The radical right-wing has tried to keep the best people out of the military because of their fears that if gays are allowed in the military, people might be more accepting of them in other areas such as marriage.

If you care about this Country, you want the best people in the best positions.
The right-wing doesn't care about that, they only care about advancing their right-wing anti-gay social agenda and they are willing to sacrifice the security interests of this country to do it.
Click to expand...

What a load of bull****.

You're supporting the repeal of DADT just so gays get a step closer to marriage, and then accuse the right of using the military to advance a social agenda. That's ****ing hypocritical.

Oppose DADT because it harms the military, not to advance your social agenda.
 
Last edited:
bicycleman said:
As a normal heterosexual, I only associate with other normal heterosexual males. You're right. I don't know any sissy boys. The only two I ever knew about when I was growing up, died of AIDS.
Click to expand...

1. If you have to boast like that, chances are you aren't real tough.
2. You ride a bicycle.
3. You did not know two that died of AIDS.
4. Please quit lying on this forum.
 
samsmart said:
Because most of those Log Cabin Republicans are fiscal conservatives or paleo-conservatives, not social or religious conservatives. Just because a person is a conservative doesn't mean they agree with all other conservative philosophies.
Click to expand...

Real 'conservatism' would be a strategy (aka, political policy) which emphasizes keeping the good stuff you already have over risking it in a struggle to get even more good stuff. Less risk equals smaller potential gain but also smaller potential loss. Its not a bad idea, especially for countries whose critical limit of "good stuff" is peaking, but you need inordinately smart people to be in control in order for it to work. Otherwise, you get terrible dysfunction.
 
Last edited:
kansaswhig said:
1. If you have to boast like that, chances are you aren't real tough.
2. You ride a bicycle.
3. You did not know two that died of AIDS.
4. Please quit lying on this forum.
Click to expand...

I suppose you're gay or a gay supporter and you think ill of anyone who doesn't think the way you do. Well in that, we are the same. I can't stand gays.
 
bicycleman said:
I suppose you're gay or a gay supporter and you think ill of anyone who doesn't think the way you do. Well in that, we are the same. I can't stand gays.
Click to expand...

:2wave:

I find that life is too short to worry what other people think and do. I say if it makes you happy to detest gays, then all the power to you. If you have decided that one of your major concerns in life is how closely people fit into gender roles, and where they stick their junk, then I wish you luck with all that.

I'm a little more concerned about living my life trying to be a decent human being but that is just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom