Lady Gaga Fights For Gays
- Thread starter Bar Sinister
- Start date
''That is why homosexuality will always work against military cohesion and preparedness.''
Naturally you have scientific evidence to prove that claim, right?
Naturally you have scientific evidence to prove that claim, right?
The fact is that homosexuals are just as capable of contributing to national defence as are heterosexuals. If it were to mean that a greater number of soldiers would be available to ensure the defence of my loved ones and our ideals, I would certainly let homosexuals contribute without a second thought. I applaud the efforts of Lady Gaga to use her political influence to affect positive change in the United States of America (and I hope that her efforts lead to the changes that His Excellency the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, seeks for the United States armed forces).
Using one's influence to get people to do something is the principle behind advertising. What is wrong with that? As for the gay thing, well I have no
problem with those who are gay. I know several people who are gay and I
have never looked down on them, or felt threatened by them, or even found
it necessary to question what their lifestyle is about. They are who they are
and that is all that counts with me. There are gays in every military and that
will be the case, regardless of what society or the governments think. It is
just fact. Lady Gaga is merely bringing the focus of that truth on the general
public radar
problem with those who are gay. I know several people who are gay and I
have never looked down on them, or felt threatened by them, or even found
it necessary to question what their lifestyle is about. They are who they are
and that is all that counts with me. There are gays in every military and that
will be the case, regardless of what society or the governments think. It is
just fact. Lady Gaga is merely bringing the focus of that truth on the general
public radar
What does this say about americas caliber of armed forces. I think it will have a huge psychological effect on the members of the forces because I dont think anyone wants to fight beside a homosexual because its not patriotic and goes against everything America is supposed to stand for. America is supposed to be a christian nation, you know that whole in god we trust thing, and when i read the bible i see condemnation of the actions of homosexuals, not the people themselves because god loves them and wants to save them. And using your influence to guide people is wrong if it is on those premises alone. Using opinions and beliefs is okay but knowing that people follow you blindly just because of your position in society is wrong.
Number one: evangelists use their influence to guide the opinions of their followers all the time.
Number two: You seem to be blindly following the opinions of fundamentalist preachers.
Number three: America is a multi-cultural country with people who believe in just about every religion and non-religion going. When the US was created, Christianity was the only game in town. Without tolerance, which the early Christians were in short supply of, we have wars like we have today, which I believe is frowned upon by J.C. - "Love thy neighbour as thyself", "Judge not lest ye shall be judged" and "turn the other cheek" seem to be sorely lacking in modern fundamental Christianity and in your rant.
The definition of prejudice is as follows.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Note everything i have said is based on examination of the facts, which i have presented, and to which i have applied reasonable evaluation. None of it is irrational, and it is certainly not based on hatred. As i've stated before the worst enemies some people have are those who enable addictive, obsessive, self destructive behaviour.. they just present themselves as friends.. like you.
you have stated that individuals should not be allowed into the army, because you think you know what they are like based on one facet of their character, without knowing the individual. That is prejudice, an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
Individuals should be considered for recruitment to the army based on who they are as individuals, not what statistics apply to a group they may or may not resemble.
Individuals should be considered for recruitment to the army based on who they are as individuals, not what statistics apply to a group they may or may not resemble.
So, are you claiming that being homosexual is addictive, obsessive, or self destructive?
That's interesting; homosexuality seemed to work well enough for the Spartans. BTW ever read the homosexual references in T.E. Lawrence's The Seven Pillars of Wisdom? He and his companions seemed to do well enough militarily.
The army, like marriage, is an institution, not a right.. the membership of which corresponds to specific qualities which enable its societal mission. Homosexuality is a debilitating impediment to both of them.
Yes, homosexuality is all these things!
Lawrence was, as far as is known, not a homosexual, He was raped while imprisoned by a Turkish officer. Which seems to further the case for probiting homosexuals from serving in the military.
I happen to think homosexuality is actually a fetish. Look up fetishes, you'll see that they are incurable, not chemically based or genetically based things that we don't really fully understand. That being said, it is crazy to think that gay people can't serve in the military. That's an inherently gay thing to do, jk. If we only knew the extent of how many gays there are in the military we'd roll on the floor and laugh uncontrollably out loud.
This is a stupid rule. The marriage thing though, I do kind of understand, but not really. That is a religious thing, imo. The state has no right to declare or consider anybody married as far as I can see. It should all be civil unions as far it concerns them. Then, if a particular religion choses or doesn't chose to allow homosexual marriage, it's in their hands. The whole thing is a waste of time to even consider. It makes no difference to me if gays want to have marriages or serve their country.
This is a stupid rule. The marriage thing though, I do kind of understand, but not really. That is a religious thing, imo. The state has no right to declare or consider anybody married as far as I can see. It should all be civil unions as far it concerns them. Then, if a particular religion choses or doesn't chose to allow homosexual marriage, it's in their hands. The whole thing is a waste of time to even consider. It makes no difference to me if gays want to have marriages or serve their country.
The above caustic rant and attitude is one of the reasons a very intelligent, caring, young man is being kicked out of his home, austrisized, and disowned. A young man that wouldn't hurt a fly and would give you the shirt off his back. All because he is gay and decided not to hide it anymore.
Coldstream, Christ never condemned homosexuals. Leviticus did and that nut job paul. As a matter of fact, everything Christ did and spoke of is the exact opposite of what YOU have posted here and the drivel written by the tax collector.
It's people like you that sometimes make me feel ashamed to identify my self as a Christian.
''The army, like marriage, is an institution, not a right.. the membership of which corresponds to specific qualities which enable its societal mission. Homosexuality is a debilitating impediment to both of them.''
As before, you are making the unsubstantiated claim that homosexuality impedes the military. However, you have yet to prove your contention. In order to gain some credibility, would you at least try to prove your claim?
We already know your opinion. Now where's your proof?
As before, you are making the unsubstantiated claim that homosexuality impedes the military. However, you have yet to prove your contention. In order to gain some credibility, would you at least try to prove your claim?
We already know your opinion. Now where's your proof?
I am missing something here. Taking your comment to its logical conclusion wouldn't it make sense to exclude all heterosexuals from the military, given the fact that most rape victims are women?
I have to agree 100% about Leviticus and Paul.
If Leviticus were to be accurate about sexual preferences then pedophilia would be included. There is not one single word about the the most grotesque and horrible act of forcing sex upon a child in either the old or new testements. The Talmud even goes as far as approving of pedophilia with ridiculously low age limits.
As for Paul. His epiphany description is bang on for what your typical epileptic experiences during a seizure. 70% of the NT was written by Paul.
If I were to return to Christian beliefs, my beliefs would be centered on the words of Christ only. The Red Letter Bible would be my text of choice.
If Christians were to be true to their religion and actually acted like Jesus, our prisons would house the majority of Canadians.
Just about all of Christianity is based on the words of Paul. That is why I prefer to call it Paulianity. Has a nice double entendre, don't you think?