Officer won't sign order for troop pro-homosexual indoctrination

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Annee

What if the medic is gay?

Are you suggesting that the gay medic would attend to the gay soldier first? If not, what is your point of asking such a question?

I was thinking of stereotyping.

You are also categorizing all medics as homophobes. IMO

I'm not categorizing anyone as anything. I'm just allowing you to make the point that while accusing others of stereotyping you have in the same breath done it yourself.

Uh huh.

Well you just keep believing that.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by KDM_Souljah

 

His opinion was that you're retarded and have crappy grammar. Why are you bashing his opinion and wanting him to respect yours?

I believe he was asking about the opinion of the subject of his post. I also believe you know that. Often spelling and grammar errors are pointed out by one who doesn't really have anything else to say or one who wants to divert from the subject at hand.

Maybe those of you that want to defend gays (nothing wrong with that) should also be compassionate enough to not misuse the word retarded (in a derogatory way).

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Isawsomething

Originally posted by KDM_Souljah
reply to post by TheBirdisDone

 

Gay people are obviously geneticly retarded goin against nature and its a suicidal genetic traite at that, and would destroy the world if we were all gay and thank god im not gay so i guess it will be my genes that survive.

Gay men can have children when bumping knobs or bumming gets one of them pregnent,dont see that happening
Gay womem can have children when rubbing thier bits together gets one of them pregnant, dont see that happening

i would accept Gays being in non combat roles in the military- only downside is how many people would suddenly turn gay

A I is not a solution to a world of gays, where is the love between a man and a woman that creates a life, the natural way off doing things

The only thing retarded here is your grammar. Please get an education, if your IQ allows it.

Look past the grammar and spelling and assume English is not his/her first language - Are you fluent in another language?

Did you have a comment regarding the subject of his/her post?

It's hard to look past the grammar considering how serious this topic is. The subject of his post needs deciphering and quite honestly somebody who approaches others in such a disrespectful and incoherent way deserves at least the same disrespect. Actually, I should have just ignored it. Maybe next time.

English is my 4th language, btw and I am from from one of those dirt poor 3rd world "countries". There is no excuse.

Anyway, let's please go back to the topic. thanks.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Dr Cosma

Why are not women on the front line?

Women in the US military are not on the front line because MAN won't allow it.

There are women in the military fighting for the right to be on the front line.

Exactly.
Now you know the answer.

Originally posted by Sparky63

To assume that some gays in the military will not sexually harass their fellow soldiers is extremely naive. I pity the ribbing some straight soldiers will have to endure when they become the object of affection by some openly gay soldier who may feel protected by the military's new policy. This is a bad policy in my opinion. I think it is just a matter of time before this issue blows up and causes massive unrest in the military.

This isn't about gay though.

This would also apply if a gay man pursued another gay man - - who didn't want his advances.

This would also apply if a straight man or woman pursed someone who did not welcome their advances.

No one is naive. But making it about gay - - instead of making it about unwanted advances is what is wrong with this picture.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Annee

What if the medic is gay?

Are you suggesting that the gay medic would attend to the gay soldier first? If not, what is your point of asking such a question?

I was thinking of stereotyping.

You are also categorizing all medics as homophobes. IMO

I'm not categorizing anyone as anything. I'm just allowing you to make the point that while accusing others of stereotyping you have in the same breath done it yourself.

Uh huh.

Well you just keep believing that.

Of course I will as you have typed it here for the world to see.

You asked "what if the medic was gay" implying that the gay medic would attend to the gay soldier first. Therefore you have stereotyped the gay guy.

reply to post by CayceFan


On the contrary, what I saw was a man who called every homosexual genetic retards. Then when someone in turn called that man's opinion retarded (which is basically calling the person an idiot), it somehow becomes outrageous.

And no, retarded is not a derogatory term to call someone, unless you consider calling someone stupid to be derogatory. It's just name-calling. So I wasn't misusing the word in the least, because I associate the term retarded with the term stupid. And I really don't see a problem with that.

Now, before you get on my case about the use of the word, and how I should be compassionate about mentally-handicapped people (I'm only making an assumption here, otherwise I don't know why you'd say I was misusing the word), I don't associate the word retarded with mentally-handicapped people. I only associate it with people who make idiotic statements and express opinions in an idiotic way.

So therefore I can't be misusing the word retarded, unless you yourself consider mentally-handicapped people to be retarded, which -is- a misuse of the word, and you would be giving it a truly derogatory context.

Originally posted by Isawsomething

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Isawsomething

Originally posted by KDM_Souljah
reply to post by TheBirdisDone

 

Gay people are obviously geneticly retarded goin against nature and its a suicidal genetic traite at that, and would destroy the world if we were all gay and thank god im not gay so i guess it will be my genes that survive.

Gay men can have children when bumping knobs or bumming gets one of them pregnent,dont see that happening
Gay womem can have children when rubbing thier bits together gets one of them pregnant, dont see that happening

i would accept Gays being in non combat roles in the military- only downside is how many people would suddenly turn gay

A I is not a solution to a world of gays, where is the love between a man and a woman that creates a life, the natural way off doing things

The only thing retarded here is your grammar. Please get an education, if your IQ allows it.

Look past the grammar and spelling and assume English is not his/her first language - Are you fluent in another language?

Did you have a comment regarding the subject of his/her post?

It's hard to look past the grammar considering how serious this topic is. The subject of his post needs deciphering and quite honestly somebody who approaches others in such a disrespectful and incoherent way deserves at least the same disrespect. Actually, I should have just ignored it. Maybe next time.

English is my 4th language, btw and I am from from one of those dirt poor 3rd world "countries". There is no excuse.

Anyway, let's please go back to the topic. thanks.

edit on 29-12-2010 by Isawsomething because: clarity

Demanding respect while being disrespectful is probably not the best way to get what you want.

I only speak one language (unless Pig Latin counts) yet I found it easy enough to ignore the grammar and see his/her point.

i will stand by what i said, but reacting to my grammer instead of the actual content of what i said is a poor come back and writing in such a quotational manner is how i put together many points in my argument and if that is all you can point out shame on you

ATS use quotes and you see this every time you reply to a message and you dont send them stupid comments

i will clarify

BEFORE YOU REPLY, make every post matter.
No 1-Liners: Please do not create minimal "me too," "I agree," or similar very-short replies. (Adding "second line" to short comments doesn't count.)

No Big-Quotes: Please edit-down posts you quote to just the important parts as it greatly improves the readability of your response.

No Shorthand: Please do not use "txting" shorthand in your posts, this is an international site and many people may not understand your post.

Respect: Give credit where credit is due, please do not paste entire pieces content from other sites, privide a short salient snippet and link to the source.

State Your Case: If you're posting links to other sites or videos, please include your commentary on how the video is relevant to the discussion.


you will see this when you reply ,so first before you bash me , bash them for it

reply to post by KDM_Souljah


So you're standing by your claim that all homosexuals are little more than genetic retards? Where is the respect inherent in that claim?

reply to post by CayceFan


You are right. Like I said before, I should have just brushed it off. Then again you agree with his pov so, why would you correct him? Otherwise you would have corrected him as well. Let's not be hypocrites and move onto more interesting aspects of this conversation.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by CayceFan

 

On the contrary, what I saw was a man who called every homosexual genetic retards. Then when someone in turn called that man's opinion retarded (which is basically calling the person an idiot), it somehow becomes outrageous.

And no, retarded is not a derogatory term to call someone, unless you consider calling someone stupid to be derogatory. It's just name-calling. So I wasn't misusing the word in the least, because I associate the term retarded with the term stupid. And I really don't see a problem with that.

Now, before you get on my case about the use of the word, and how I should be compassionate about mentally-handicapped people (I'm only making an assumption here, otherwise I don't know why you'd say I was misusing the word), I don't associate the word retarded with mentally-handicapped people. I only associate it with people who make idiotic statements and express opinions in an idiotic way.

So therefore I can't be misusing the word retarded, unless you yourself consider mentally-handicapped people to be retarded, which -is- a misuse of the word, and you would be giving it a truly derogatory context.

We can disagree about your use of the word retard. Of course I believe that calling someone stupid or a retard is derogatory (I also think you agree with me). If you cant see the difference between retarded and stupid I wont try and explain.


Dictionary.com

–adjective
1.
characterized by retardation: a retarded child. Handicapped.
–noun
2.
( used with a plural verb ) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the ): new schools for the retarded.



The poster did not say gays were " homosexual genetic retards" as you have typed. He/She stated that it was a genetic retardation (meaning abnormal). Someone posted that less than 1% of the population is gay, if you ask me that makes being gay less than normal.

Originally posted by CayceFan

You asked "what if the medic was gay" implying that the gay medic would attend to the gay soldier first. Therefore you have stereotyped the gay guy.

The question does not stereotype or imply anything. It is just a question.

Actually - your premise is that a Medic would treat a gay soldier who was the most seriously injured last - because he is gay.

This is making an assumption about the Medic - - and has nothing to do with the gay soldier.

So you are stating - - that even if the Medic is gay - - he would still treat the more seriously injured soldier last - - because that soldier is gay?

Isn't that what you are stating?

reply to post by KDM_Souljah


I'm not against women in the military taking administration jobs and nursing in Military hospitals however I'm against women in all other areas of the military for a variety of reasons. Firstly, rape of women soldiers in the US military is high, secondly, by placing women on the war front poses many problems for them (how they deal with that time of the month, hygene etc for long periods of time), the morale of men when their women are captured by the enemy and the types of torture the enemy uses especially on women although not intirely subjected to only women however there is one thing you can be sure of and thats men will "talk" by torture before the women do due to the fact that women are generally psychologically tougher.

I do know of a rare case where a female IDF soldier was captured by the Lebanese quite some years ago and stranger than strange she ended up marrying one of her captors, she's now a mother and still married and resides in Lebanon to this very day.

For women, stick with nursing and administration. If you fancy the uniform and a gun, the Police is a better alternative and even then I have my doubts about some of the policewomen.

I feel like I have to repeat this again and again.

GAYS ARE ALREADY SERVING IN THE MILITARY

They have always done, and will always do. The only thing this changes is allowing gays to claim each other as dependance, getting houseing and maried rate BAH and BAS, just like the straight couples. It will allow for seperation pay and so on. It will also allow them to talk about the fact that they are gay. They must still adhear to the simple diciplice and regulations of military life. As I said before, you can't show overt effection in uniform. No one can. You can only hold your childrens hands in public for sefety, not your spouse. If you want to get real nit picky, when the troops come home from a deployment and hug loved ones, you could argue that is out of regs. Now no one is going to do that, but still.

Originally posted by Isawsomething
reply to post by CayceFan

 

You are right. Like I said before, I should have just brushed it off. Then again you agree with his pov so, why would you correct him? Otherwise you would have corrected him as well. Let's not be hypocrites and move onto more interesting aspects of this conversation.

I didn't say I agree with his point of view though in part what he says makes sense. If we had a population of gay people wouldn't (or at least couldn't) the human race die off?

I actually agree that gays should be able to serve in the military, in fact I don't think we should have ever had a don't ask don't tell policy. I just don't think I or we should be forced to go to class designed to make us accept a persons sexual preference.

reply to post by CayceFan


Sorry, you're both wrong.

He said genetically retarded -- implying that homosexuals have slower moving genes.

Which seems okay considering it seems that the faster the genes get, the more holy and less literate you become.

(And no I don't think pointing out obvious hypocrisy is derogatory)

a human being who has a genetic traite that makes him/her have sex with the same sex cannot have children and that is something that can potentialy have consequences for the human race, that is defective genes and is a natural occuring thing and i can agree with that but still not a good thing to promote , retarded is a strong word and taken out of context can make a lot off people mad as to think i ment they were all retards , kind of sad that you couldnt read what i said and locked on to the word retard and not the genetic part of it and then join the dots.

Retarded genes is not the same as saying someone is retarded.

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by CayceFan

 

On the contrary, what I saw was a man who called every homosexual genetic retards. Then when someone in turn called that man's opinion retarded (which is basically calling the person an idiot), it somehow becomes outrageous.

And no, retarded is not a derogatory term to call someone, unless you consider calling someone stupid to be derogatory. It's just name-calling. So I wasn't misusing the word in the least, because I associate the term retarded with the term stupid. And I really don't see a problem with that.

Now, before you get on my case about the use of the word, and how I should be compassionate about mentally-handicapped people (I'm only making an assumption here, otherwise I don't know why you'd say I was misusing the word), I don't associate the word retarded with mentally-handicapped people. I only associate it with people who make idiotic statements and express opinions in an idiotic way.

So therefore I can't be misusing the word retarded, unless you yourself consider mentally-handicapped people to be retarded, which -is- a misuse of the word, and you would be giving it a truly derogatory context.

We can disagree about your use of the word retard. Of course I believe that calling someone stupid or a retard is derogatory (I also think you agree with me). If you cant see the difference between retarded and stupid I wont try and explain.


Dictionary.com

–adjective
1.
characterized by retardation: a retarded child. Handicapped.
–noun
2.
( used with a plural verb ) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the ): new schools for the retarded.



The poster did not say gays were " homosexual genetic retards" as you have typed. He/She stated that it was a genetic retardation (meaning abnormal). Someone posted that less than 1% of the population is gay, if you ask me that makes being gay less than normal.

Did you read the rest of his original hateful post? Why are you cherry picking? Stop defending carefully selected parts of his bigoted post or just own up to the fact that you agree and move on, like I am.

Be happy guys, live and let live. See ya around the forum.!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CayceFan

You asked "what if the medic was gay" implying that the gay medic would attend to the gay soldier first. Therefore you have stereotyped the gay guy.

The question does not stereotype or imply anything. It is just a question.

Actually - your premise is that a Medic would treat a gay soldier who was the most seriously injured last - because he is gay.

This is making an assumption about the Medic - - and has nothing to do with the gay soldier.

So you are stating - - that even if the Medic is gay - - he would still treat the more seriously injured soldier last - - because that soldier is gay?

Isn't that what you are stating?



No. That was not my premise. You are confusing me with the another poster. I chimed in after he made such a "premise" because in your rhetorical question you implied the same thing. I was merely pointing out the flaw your presumed argument.