That’s because it is logically consistent if you accept gay marriage. If you pick and choose gay marriage and not polygamy, you are practicing the very discrimination that current traditionalists employ. Without God, it is all hypocrisy.
The article says, “The people putting out this statement are not fringe figures.” It then lists people on the fringe, like Steinem.
So you use two extremely suspect sources for your claims? So stop spitting out your propaganda about our priests without any proof whatsoever.
How did you know these people where gay? Did they come up to you and say: “Hi my name is _________ _______ and I am gay!” You are making alot of assumptions in your posts.
Gay people are not discrimated against. They are not a minority and should not be given the rights of a minority. Do you know how a gay person keeps from getting people from looking at him or her differently? By keeping what they do in the bedroom in the bedroom just like everybody else.
Again no proof of your assertions. I spent 4 years in the Marines and there was maybe one guy in our company that may have been gay by his mannerisms, but I can’t prove that he was or was not. That is maybe one person in maybe 140 marines?
They need to be quite about their sexuality and keep what they do in the bedroom in the bedroom. That is what we all should be doing period. I am married and I am not going to go around and tell people what happens in my bedroom and neither should you or they.
Maybe because the wide majority of individuals in the military are heterosexual? I know that one of my deployments got postponed by one day due to two sailors having same sex relations in one of the ammo rooms. On a ship that has all men same sex misconduct is the only type of sexual misconduct you can have.
So what you’re saying is that gay people are only discriminated against if they say they’re gay or someone else tells others that they’re gay, and that this doesn’t make them a minority. I have a hard time following this reasoning.
True, and I doubt you’ll find a gay person that does any of this. What quite a few will do is let others known that they’re gay as a form of expression. The stigma of being gay and having to constantly hide your sexual identity is mentally fatiguing. So, it appears that being open about the subject is a way of coping with societal pressures, that same society who more often than not will sell you as an effeminate fag going to hell then deny you civil liberties.
We’ve all seen them dressed as “nuns” in the Doo-Dah parades. It’s a form of “expression” when someone in the counter-culture does something in-your-face, like insult your traditional ways of life and beliefs, but it’s bigotry when a traditionalist merely voices an opinion.
And you feel justified in the beliefs that all gay people dress as nuns and attack Catholicism? Lets get real, the people in the pride parades are a little nuts. To brush all gays with the same stroke is the same as me calling all priests pedophiles. To address the point, if you discriminate against someone unjustly then you’re a bigot. If a traditionalist feels justified in discriminating against a homosexual they don’t know based off of propaganda they’ve heard from heterosexuals and pride parade news coverage then I guess that’s their business, but it might make them a fool more than a bigot. If someone’s expression is insulting then sometimes that’s the price you pay for living in a society with free speech. If this traditionalist would like to say or print that all homosexuals are evil beings condemned to hell, then that’s fine, it’s insulting but they should have the right to say it. It’s when speech turns into action that insults cross into bigotry, which is unacceptable.
If society gave them the same rights, such as to serve in the military, then perhaps they would complain a lot less. People tend to get all upset when they find out that because they’re gay they don’t have as many freedoms as others.
Well put.
Homosexuality is a sexual fetish and nothing more than that. People who participate in homosexual activity are not a true minority and should not be classified as such. They should not be given minority rights. Should they be discriminated against concerning civilian employment? No. Should they be beaten up and spit on? No. But they shouldn’t be given special rights. Who is going to be next? Should we give special rights to those that commit acts of bestiality, child molestation, etc?
Because you have a small minority of people out there that is trying to change homosexuality into a minority so that they get special rights that no one else has. Also this small but outspoken group is doing a very good job selling their side even though most of what they are selling is not true. How many people just take it for granted that there is a “homosexual” gene? Yet there is no proof whatsoever that one exists. There is no proof that a person can be born a homosexual. So you have this outspoken group going around telling people that there is nothing wrong with same-sex sex and that it is actually cool to have same-sex sex and that if you are attracted to a person of the same sex it is not an abnormal behavior, but evolution. If you do not believe that this is the case, go out and ask a number of young men what they think about to girls getting it on. You may or may not be surprised by the response.True, and I doubt you’ll find a gay person that does any of this. What quite a few will do is let others known that they’re gay as a form of expression. The stigma of being gay and having to constantly hide your sexual identity is mentally fatiguing. So, it appears that being open about the subject is a way of coping with societal pressures, that same society who more often than not will sell you as an effeminate fag going to hell then deny you civil liberties.
I’m glad to see this thread is still going strong
Hopefully you came back with arguments that have substance this time.
Are you against the Constitution and the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief? Just curious if you think that both the House and the President can set military policy (as the Constitution grants them the power to do).
What “special right” is it to be gay and to be in the military? The “special right” here seems to be that some military folk are requesting the right to exclude certain sexual orientations of the servicemen and women in their units. What “special right” is a gay soldier requesting if he is simply saying, “Please don’t pressure me to lie about what you can be so open about.”
Huh?
What a stupid question. Yes the President as the commander in chief has the right to set military policy. But a president that does this without the advice of his military commanders is an idiot and purely political driven. Which is what he and Congress are obviously doing since they are not waiting for the report back from the Military. The only reason why this has recently come up is because the President is loosing his base and this was bone thrown out there to satisfy at least part of his electoral base.
The special rights that they will have is the opportunity to be placed in a environment of captive individuals that they have a sexual attraction for and these individuals with have no choice but to expose themselves to the potential and probable gauking. I don’t have that right. When I was in the military, they didn’t allow me to shower with the women, so why should they get that right. These men cannot just leave or quit if they don’t like it. No they will have to endure it. If the military says that they will segregate the gay soldier from the others to protect their rights then the gay soldier will most probably have his own room and shower, which none of the other soldiers will have.