Defending the Truth

Articles | Interviews | Politicians | Groups | Arcade | Experience | Donate
  Defending the Truth > Political Issues > Gay Marriage
Now, This is Certainly Fair!

Gay Marriage Debate and defend your political beliefs as to whether or not marriage should be only defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Reply
Page 5 of 5 < 1234 5
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-14-2007, 01:33 PM   #41 (permalink)
Congressional Representative
 
CrazyFlamingos's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Alabama
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,390
Points: 11,711, Level: 71
Points: 11,711, Level: 71 Points: 11,711, Level: 71 Points: 11,711, Level: 71
Level up: 16%, 339 Points needed
Level up: 16% Level up: 16% Level up: 16%
Activity: 34%
Activity: 34% Activity: 34% Activity: 34%
CrazyFlamingos is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher View Post
You are free to think that. The US Military and Congress think differently, and so do most of the American people

Really? Where do you get that idea?
Quote:
His ability to "do the job" is irrelevant to the fact that he flouted Navy rules,

I never said it did.

Please do learn to follow a thread.


Quote:
and, as a homosexual, could have had a discomforting and disruptive effect on other naval personnel
Quote:
"It wasn’t an issue at work."

No comment is even necessary.
Right now America spends $700 billion every year on foreign oil. That's our money going overseas when it could be staying here. We have to stop this.
That's why I support the Pickens Plan. Check out the website at www.pickensplan.com. If you like what you see, please join me as a Pickens Plan supporter.

Sponsored Links
Old 05-14-2007, 01:54 PM   #42 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,981
Country:
Points: 31,280, Level: 100
Points: 31,280, Level: 100 Points: 31,280, Level: 100 Points: 31,280, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos View Post
Really? Where do you get that idea?
>>>>>>>>>>>

I get that idea from U.S. military policy which implements Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654b) passed by the US Congress in 1993.

Please try to follow your country's news




"It wasn’t an issue at work."

No comment is even necessary.
Comment is very necessary.

His buddy was trying to defend an indefensible position, perhaps he has homosexual tendencies too?

And he is only one person. Who's to say there was no detrimental effect on other naval personnel?

The fact is the US Military, supported by the American People via Congress, has chosen not to have open homosexuals poodling around in the military of the world's sole superpower
Old 05-14-2007, 10:48 PM   #43 (permalink)
Senator
 
foundit66's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,844
Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86 Points: 18,394, Level: 86
Level up: 9%, 456 Points needed
Level up: 9% Level up: 9% Level up: 9%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
foundit66 is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher View Post
Wrong. He was kicked out for deliberately flouting the rules.
"The rules", as you put it, are unjustified and nonsensical.
Even Britain has the common sense to have a court tell their military to shape up and stop discriminating.

If the military creates a rule demanding that all soldiers need to wear crosses, do we blindly declare that those who refuse are "flouting the rules"?

You are purposely avoiding the justification of this rule, and avoiding the fact that the military ignored its own rule out of convenience.


Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher
The US military has no religious restriction.
You are obviously incapable of comprehending a hypothetical scenario.


Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher
Ho-ho, Deep end.
Very drole
It's amazing how often you ignore the main argument and make snide comments about add-on statements.

You reveal over and over again that ANYTHING you would have ANY authority over would be ruined in a short period of time.
Absurd policies and idiotic ideas that are just plain not followed in real life.
These guys aren't going to get fired.

And the very idea of firing a person just because he knew of another gay sailor?
Wow!


Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher
Stop blubberring into your handkerchief and have the guts to admit the truth.
This homosexual deliberately flouted the law and was disciplined accordingly
The rule is unjustified and should be rejected.
An overwhelming majority in this country think the anti-gay policy of the military is crap.
The government's OWN RESEARCH on the issue prove that it is unwarranted.

Other countries demonstrate capability to run a military without this rule.
It is discrimination without a purpose.
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher
Reply
Page 5 of 5 < 1234 5

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 PM.

Defending the Truth - FAQ - Contact Us - Donate - Archive - Top

 Top Political Sites
Poltical Topsites 

Recommended Sites