Defending the Truth

fxashun · 09-29-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

I personally have an aversion to certain sex acts. Even those accomplished between two consenting adults. But I would not promote my aversion as a legal limitation to be placed on others.

I agree. I have never said otherwise.

And it is a hypocrisy to think that the UCMJ has ever actively sought out the adulterous or heterosexual men and women who did perform anal sex. The gay in service to this country have always been targeted for discharge status. And who is to say how many, if left to serve this nation in military service would have shown us great heroic and patriotic actions! You take away from our own good by prejudice.

I agree the rules are discrimatory. That's why they were repealed in civilian life. I didn't say I agreed with them. I understand that gays have been in the service, but the service by nature of the beast would have been just as good without them if they had "come out" and gotten discharged. There are very few jobs in the service that can't be done just as well by "the next guy". Why would anyone join the service in the first place if they feel that strongly about their "orientation"? It would be like a homosexual man trying to give blood at the Red Cross.
We have a real life DADT for a lot of things in civilian life. When a man gets married, he knows he still wants to screw every woman that he passes. There's DADT. A necrophiliac can't profess his love for the corpse at a funeral. A pedo can't practice his "orientation" openly(any more). So even though the sodomy rule in the military is on the surface wrong, to promote order, it can be seen as a tool to discharge a person who against such. As in the civilian world, "sodomy" includes other acts beyond homosexual ones.

On the other hand, a man who commits adultery with a woman, left to serve this country has already shown himself to be unfaithful. Isn't infidelity a dangerous trait in a soldier?
OhDear

Adultry is punishable under the UCMJ. And people were punished for it when I was in the Marines. It happens if it is found out. It's also pretty much another DADT offense.
Stars and Stripes: Warrant officer is discharged after tryst with private at Camp Casey

fxashun · 09-29-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

<--------*----------*-------------------*--------------*-----------*>

The above is meant to show what is the sliding scale of measuring sexual orientation. While most folk are at one end or the other, the truly honest folk are not afraid of the fact that this scale is for some fluid and for others, demonstrating their orientation is at the other end.

Too bad there is no support to the sliding scale other than theory. I would agree with that if that sliding scale, which to me, also includes a lot of f'd up "orientations" had some "reason" or "purpose" to support it. I think the incidences of hermaphroditism and gender reversal show that the human is simply prone to disorders related to sexuality.

What is normal is anything on that scale. What is abnormal is living in fear of others who are not in the same place on that bar as one's self.
See above.
Fx, it is my experience that most folk who have phobic conclusions about the sexuality of others are afraid to really admit where they would be plotted if not dictated to by the expectations of society.

Well you have the right to that conclusion. But I beg to differ. I'm sure it would be safe to assume that you agree with me that having sex with animals is absolutely nasty. Does the fact that we think it's nasty to have sex with animals mean we "are afraid to admit where we would be plotted if not dictated to by the expectations of society" or do we just think it's abnormal for humans to have sex outside their species?
I think your assumption is flawed.

OhDear · 09-29-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

When a man gets married, he knows he still wants to screw every woman that he passes.

that finding by fxashun!

I do not believe that is true! I am not saying ever, but by and large, I believe you made a blanket statement that is offensive to the countless men who have sexual fidelity in or out of marriage.

Unbelievable bunny trails you take fx...

OhDear

fxashun · 09-29-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

that finding by fxashun!

I do not believe that is true! I am not saying ever, but by and large, I believe you made a blanket statement that is offensive to the countless men who have sexual fidelity in or out of marriage

Unbelievable bunny trails you take fx...

OhDear

No, I think it's unbelieveable that you would take that statement as my meaning ALL men. And not taking it to mean that I meant that "most men still are attracted to other women even though they are married". For you to take that statement that far is very unlike you OD.

Should we look at fidelity statistics?

pensacola_niceman · 09-29-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

that finding by fxashun!

I do not believe that is true! I am not saying ever, but by and large, I believe you made a blanket statement that is offensive to the countless men who have sexual fidelity in or out of marriage.

Unbelievable bunny trails you take fx...

OhDear

It's not true. You only want to screw the attractive ones.

fxashun · 09-29-2007, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

It's not true. You only want to screw the attractive ones.

Actually big boobs are the key. Love a nice set of boobs. Why else would an otherwise ugly woman go get a nice set of hooters? Big hooters give a woman at least another couple of digits on the 1-10 scale.

sgtdmski · 09-30-2007, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

sgtdmski - LOL - you are very good at Orwellian double speak. You almost sound like that garysher...or at least the way he used to sound (I don't read him anymore).

I'm also against people who kill people - does that make me a murderer?

LOL

How about blacks who don't like white people being in a superior political position - does this make them racists?

geesus. When somebody calls an entire community of law-abiding citizens 'immoral' - and believes they should be given second class treatment by government agencies, it's BIGOTRY.

He never called homosexuals immoral. He only claimed that he believed the act of homosexual sex as well as adultery was immoral. Big difference.

dmk

sgtdmski · 09-30-2007, 03:33 AM

Come now, you yourself have often talked about reasoned debate. So tell me where is it on the part of the homosexual community??????

Jeering and name calling, that is not reasoned, more like childish.

In another topic labelling anyone who does not support gay marriage as homophobes, oh yes yet again more reason.......NOT

And of course the all time classic, anyone who is going to speak out against homosexuality, well they are going to be giving hate speeches.

Again look at the wealth of reason for the homosexual community. It amounts to name calling.........That is all you have, WOW some leaders.

dmk

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode