Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by StarryNight:
quote:


The fact that you attempt to equate race with sexual preference ended any credibility you thought you might have.


Why not? You are denying someone their rights based on the who they are. Like it or not, gay people were born that way. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. That is the problem with this country. Blow hards like you try to dictate how others are treated when you don't even understand a person's inner being.


1st off, you are going off of a THEORY that is far from proven that someone is BORN homosexual. That's silliness.

however... what if I concede that point. Then anyone who was BORN a alcoholic, serial killer, rapist, zoophile, or pedaphile could never be sent to prison. How can we punish someone, by your assessment, "BASED ON WHO THEY ARE."?
And to continue to quote you... "Like it or not,"(alcoholics, pedaphile, zoophile, rapists, serial killers,)"were born that way. That is the problem with this country. Blow hards like you try to dictate how others are treated when you don't even understand a person's inner being."

I already know the primary comeback to this..."But those folks are committing crimes." Sodomy is/was a crime in this country. Not too many ways for 2 dudes to hook up while dodging that one.

Now... I'm not saying that all homosexuals are terrible people like the ones I've mentioned, but if you give the scapegoat of "born that way" to one group, you gotta be ready to give that same scapegoat to ALL groups. Are you willing to give ALL groups who claim "born that way" the same protection you give homosexuals?
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
I already know the primary comeback to this..."But those folks are committing crimes." Sodomy is/was a crime in this country. Not too many ways for 2 dudes to hook up while dodging that one.


You do realize that oral sex of any kind is also sodomy? I guess that means most people would be guilty.
quote:
Originally posted by logical:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
I already know the primary comeback to this..."But those folks are committing crimes." Sodomy is/was a crime in this country. Not too many ways for 2 dudes to hook up while dodging that one.




You do realize that oral sex of any kind is also sodomy? I guess that means most people would be guilty.


You strengthened my point with that post... for that I thank you. Wink

I'm simply stating that the defense of "Well, those things you mentioned are crimes" is moot. If they really cared about the law when speaking of one's sexual desires, then they'd be against homosexuality also. But it's the only "born that way" sexual preference that gets a pass. That's what I would love to hear a defense of. Even before the act occurs, they'd call all of those other folks sick just for the desire alone, yet with homosexuality, it's ok. It's a tangled web that folks on that side of the isle don't like to wander into, but a web spun by them.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Face it Peter, you are in a rapidly shrinking minority. In the under 25 age group, people with your willingness to try and impose your version of a moral code, dont even exist.


LOL!!! Oh yeah, and this country is BOOMING because of that right?? LMAO!!! You just helped prove so many points from folks like me it's crazy. But instead of talking about those, I'll go with your quote here of "try to impose your version of a moral code." What moral code do you speak of? Biblical moral code? How is that bad? Whether you believe in God or Jesus or not, it's hard to argue with the principles laid out in the Bible for a moral way of life, wouldn't you agree?

And once again... why not anarchy?? Why do you impose moral restrictions on anything you do, or anyone else? If someone tells you they desire sex with someone of the same gender you think they were born that way so it's ok. but if the next person walks up and tells you they were born with a natural attraction for goats, you'd call them sick right? But why? Both are taught as wrong under the Biblical moral code, but you think that's bunk... so why is a man born with the desire to hook up with a goat sick, but a man born with the desire to hook up with another man ok?(what if that other man is the first man's brother btw? Is that ok too, incest?) Folks on your side of this issue create the slippery slope, but then you run from the hillside afterwards. To be on your side of this fence, you must believe that ALL "born that way" *unnatural* sexual urges are ok. You can't give a pass to one, and judge the others are bad.

*Unnatural meaning, men and women obviously are born with certain....features I'll say... that make sexual contact a natural function of their body parts. That is not the case with man w man or woman w woman. To argue that means you don't understand basic anatomy.
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
quote:
Originally posted by bluetick:
I just wonder, If a taliban insurgent were about to saw off your head with a dull knife, and a gay soldier came to your rescue, would you tell him you didn't want his help?


Pointless post... Where has it ever said that gay people couldn't join the military?


That wasn't the point Pete. It's about people who hate others.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by bluetick:
I just wonder, If a taliban insurgent were about to saw off your head with a dull knife, and a gay soldier came to your rescue, would you tell him you didn't want his help?


I doubt that he would say "I'm a gay soldier and I'm here to help".


Probably would go more like this.

Oh thtop it you beathst or I'll scratch out your eyes. Big Grin
Peter, the moral code you want America to adhere to is no longer applicable to modern society. Morality is what a society dfines it to be, not the dictates of any particular religion. Why are you so intent on the claim that homosexuals were born with that inclination? Does it matter if they were born that way or if it is a choice?

As to the goat man, I could care less if you want to get busy with your goat herd. It does not affect me as long as they are your goats on your property. In general, society hasnt adopted that same viewpoint though.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Peter, the moral code you want America to adhere to is no longer applicable to modern society. Morality is what a society dfines it to be, not the dictates of any particular religion. Why are you so intent on the claim that homosexuals were born with that inclination? Does it matter if they were born that way or if it is a choice?

As to the goat man, I could care less if you want to get busy with your goat herd. It does not affect me as long as they are your goats on your property. In general, society hasnt adopted that same viewpoint though.


You know what, I know we still disagree, but because you are ok with someone who may desire to get busy with a goat, I completely respect your opinion based on the fact that you are consistent.
And I'm not intent that homosexuals are born that way. I believe quite the opposite. But once again, because you don't say that, I once again, respect your opinion even though I disagree with it.
As for morality in this country. I agree, it's fallen off a lot over the years. But many of the situations we hear a lot about now come from a LOUD minority rather that it's the majority speaking about it. That usually shows up in votes on "moral" issues(which I don't really care for by the way.)

All in all, I'm glad we've chatted Juan. We obviously disagree, but you are the first person on this topic who I've ever debated with who is consistent. Thanks! and have a great New Years.
Stuck,

Not all gay men are "limp wristed candy *** queers." I know a particular gay man who used to be a Kenpo instructor years ago and worked full-time at Robbins. Well, there came a day at the plant when a few of the "real men" decided they'd give ole "Jimmy" a piece of their mind. "Jimmy" made them look pretty stupid before he got whacked in the back a few times with a metal pole. I'm not sure what he's doing now, but I know he and his "friend" keep one of the most well-manicured lawns on North Cave Street in Tuscumbia.

For the record, I'm not "Jimmy." Ask my pregnant wife.
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by bluetick:
I just wonder, If a taliban insurgent were about to saw off your head with a dull knife, and a gay soldier came to your rescue, would you tell him you didn't want his help?


Yes, because I would need the help of a real man,not some limp wristed candy ass queer.


Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
this is the most idiotic carp I've seen in a while...well, not really with this administration... but, this is so pathetic my head's spinnin!!! IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOR THE JOB OF CONGRESS TO PRACTICE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SOCIAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE MILITARY!!!

If General Petreus went to King Barry and said..."We could end the war in Afganistan if openly gay folks could be in the military." then awesome!!! Pass this bill!!! This has zero to do with protecting our country and making the military stronger and everything to do with feelgoodism politics. What a garbage waste of taxpayer time and dollars that was spent by politicians dealing with this issue. We are a country led by morons....really sad.


Because discharging almost 60 arabic translators (a job that has shortages anyway) when we are fighting people who speak... arabic doesn't weaken our military at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by bluetick:
I just wonder, If a taliban insurgent were about to saw off your head with a dull knife, and a gay soldier came to your rescue, would you tell him you didn't want his help?


Yes, because I would need the help of a real man,not some limp wristed candy ass queer.


Turns out you don't know a whole lot, do you ?

One of the most fierce warriors known in history traveled around with his boyfriend from battle to battle.
He was ultimately became commander and eventually conquered the entire known world, built a great city in Egypt that carries his name, which had the greatest library known in it's time, maybe ever.
He apparently did cry on occasion , as we are told he cried when he learned there was no more known world left for him to conquer.
One of the few warriors ever to have "The Great" attached as a suffix to his name -- Alexander.
Now you know a little more.
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by bluetick:
I just wonder, If a taliban insurgent were about to saw off your head with a dull knife, and a gay soldier came to your rescue, would you tell him you didn't want his help?


Yes, because I would need the help of a real man,not some limp wristed candy ass queer.


Going by your law of "stereotypes are always right" I don't think I would want the help of an ignorant, moonshine drinking, toothless, illiterate moron. Guess the spartans were "limp wristed candy ass queers" too huh?
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by bluetick:
I just wonder, If a taliban insurgent were about to saw off your head with a dull knife, and a gay soldier came to your rescue, would you tell him you didn't want his help?


Yes, because I would need the help of a real man,not some limp wristed candy ass queer.


Going by your law of "stereotypes are always right" I don't think I would want the help of an ignorant, moonshine drinking, toothless, illiterate moron. Guess the spartans were "limp wristed candy ass queers" too huh?


I'm sorry you had a troubled childhood.
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by bluetick:
I just wonder, If a taliban insurgent were about to saw off your head with a dull knife, and a gay soldier came to your rescue, would you tell him you didn't want his help?


Yes, because I would need the help of a real man,not some limp wristed candy ass queer.


Going by your law of "stereotypes are always right" I don't think I would want the help of an ignorant, moonshine drinking, toothless, illiterate moron. Guess the spartans were "limp wristed candy ass queers" too huh?


I'm sorry you had a troubled childhood.


Actually I had a nice childhood, and now I'm getting a good education. Something you may not know too much about.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Really wouldn't suggest you making a move on a Spartan, back then. You wouldn't live very long. Perhaps, a member of the Sacred Band of Thebes.

Despite the recent movie, Spartan wore armor -- a laminate that was high tech for its time. They didn't go bare chested into combat!


Yeah considering they were the most feared warriors of their time, but I haven't heard about their armor. That kind of stuff is really interesting to me. I thought they wore the bronze breast plates and the wooden shields covered in bronze.
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Really wouldn't suggest you making a move on a Spartan, back then. You wouldn't live very long. Perhaps, a member of the Sacred Band of Thebes.

Despite the recent movie, Spartan wore armor -- a laminate that was high tech for its time. They didn't go bare chested into combat!


Yeah considering they were the most feared warriors of their time, but I haven't heard about their armor. That kind of stuff is really interesting to me. I thought they wore the bronze breast plates and the wooden shields covered in bronze.


FYI. I saw this on the History Channel, originally. Later, Alexander's men used an even more effective type of laminate -- linen, leather and bronze strips. The laminate was lighter, more flexible and, by accounts, more effective than the more expensive solid bronze.

"A more well-to-do hoplite would have linothorax, armor composed of stitched/laminated linen fabrics that was sometimes reinforced with animal skins and/or bronze scales. The linothorax was the most popular type armor worn by the hoplites, since it was cost-effective and provided decent protection. The richer upper-class hoplites typically had a bronze breastplate of either the bell or muscled variety, a bronze helmet with cheekplates, as well as greaves and other armour."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Really wouldn't suggest you making a move on a Spartan, back then. You wouldn't live very long. Perhaps, a member of the Sacred Band of Thebes.

Despite the recent movie, Spartan wore armor -- a laminate that was high tech for its time. They didn't go bare chested into combat!


Yeah considering they were the most feared warriors of their time, but I haven't heard about their armor. That kind of stuff is really interesting to me. I thought they wore the bronze breast plates and the wooden shields covered in bronze.
Shhhhh, don't say to much about the Spartans, you'll have high schools all over the country scrambling to change the name of their football teams! Wink
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by Caduceus:
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Really wouldn't suggest you making a move on a Spartan, back then. You wouldn't live very long. Perhaps, a member of the Sacred Band of Thebes.

Despite the recent movie, Spartan wore armor -- a laminate that was high tech for its time. They didn't go bare chested into combat!


Yeah considering they were the most feared warriors of their time, but I haven't heard about their armor. That kind of stuff is really interesting to me. I thought they wore the bronze breast plates and the wooden shields covered in bronze.


FYI. I saw this on the History Channel, originally. Later, Alexander's men used an even more effective type of laminate -- linen, leather and bronze strips. The laminate was lighter, more flexible and, by accounts, more effective than the more expensive solid bronze.

"A more well-to-do hoplite would have linothorax, armor composed of stitched/laminated linen fabrics that was sometimes reinforced with animal skins and/or bronze scales. The linothorax was the most popular type armor worn by the hoplites, since it was cost-effective and provided decent protection. The richer upper-class hoplites typically had a bronze breastplate of either the bell or muscled variety, a bronze helmet with cheekplates, as well as greaves and other armour."

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


We have gotten way off topic here, but another thing I found interesting about armor on the History Channel.
Ganges Kahn , maybe the best calvary general in history, had all his horsemen wear silk clothing. Turns out , as light as it is, an arrow will not tear silk. The problem with arrows is that going into a person is bad enough, but when they pulled them out, most of the damage was done. Silk, being strong enough to withstand the arrow points, would allow a warrior to just pull the arrow out without the collateral damage usually done.
Gotta admit tho, I can't personally vouch for that, just something I picked up on the History channel.
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Now, if they changed their names to Thebans, I might be concerned. Especially, if they had an all male cheer leading squad.

Nothing against male cheerleaders, per se. Sheffield used to have one in the early sixties. He was one lucky son of a gun.
I've seen some old highschool "yearbooks", 40s, 50s maybe, and they had male cheerleaders.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×