It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 30
21
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I really don't see what the big fuss is all about. If gays are willing to fight for our country next to heterosexuals so be it. Most guys can tell if someone is gay without someone telling them. I'm sure when they're out in the battle field and our enemies our shooting at them they aren't going to care if the guy next to them is gay or not. From my observations, the younger generation today are more accepting of homosexuals.




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Since when are 18 year olds normal, functional, and socially aware adults?


I guess it is all in who you know? Keep your friends.


But let's not cherry pick statements to try and derail.


I quoted the entire post and responded to it as a whole.


The military should put unisex showers and toilets on bases and in camps then, yes?


I failed to see your argument for that other than an attempt to pull at the modesty strings of females serving. You obviously missed this thread where I stated I had no problem with unisex showers but a valid argument FOR them is what you are looking for. Good luck.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
That is easy.

According to common law. murder is the ending of another persons life with malice or intent.

Also, according to common law, killing someone without malice or intent is manslaughter.

Self defense and fighting enemy combatants is excluded from being unlawful.


What part of the bible is that from?


The ten commandments. . . you shall not murder?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   



I guess it is all in who you know? Keep your friends.


lol I am a 31 year old school bus driver. I am around kids for my job.

And I am a guy. I know male hormones. You, being a female, have no idea what boys will come up with to see women naked. Ever watched the movie Porky's . . . or hell, any teen movie about boys and girls?




I quoted the entire post and responded to it as a whole.


No you did not. You chose the last line, which I made in jest, to try and discredit what I said.




I failed to see your argument for that other than an attempt to pull at the modesty strings of females serving. You obviously missed this thread where I stated I had no problem with unisex showers but a valid argument FOR them is what you are looking for. Good luck.


I am sure you are fine with unisex showers.
Riiiight.

And you are one in how many millions of women on America.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
That is easy.

According to common law. murder is the ending of another persons life with malice or intent.

Also, according to common law, killing someone without malice or intent is manslaughter.

Self defense and fighting enemy combatants is excluded from being unlawful.


What part of the bible is that from?


The ten commandments. . . you shall not murder?


Mine says "kill" but that is besides the point. I specifically asked where you definition of murder and justifiable homicide under common law is spelled out in the bible. I already pointed out that the 6th commandment is to not kill.

If you just jumped in here in the middle with no consideration of provided discussion only in an attempt to rehash done arguments, then you will soon fall on deaf ears. How does it feel to show up after the show and start doing the same act the headliner already did for a packed house?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


You watch too many movies or your life experience is quite limited. Not one male friend of mine had NOT yet seen a naked girl by 18. I lost my virginity at 12. To think that I or anyone I know would sign up for the service just to see a naked body is INSANE at best. If that is the best way you can come up with to see a naked girl, then there is something so severely lacking in your social development that the idea of you being handed a live weapon scares the piss out of me. Seriously.

But maybe you are right. I am still waiting for all the boys to say they would join the military just to see a naked girl. Any minute now, right?

Counting hands up......

is that one???

Nope.

Well, I can wait.
edit on 29-12-2010 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

It is sad that your friend came on to you and that your friendship ended. However it doesn;t mean that gays are normally into converting straights.I'm sure some do but I think perhaps that your friend fell in love with you and got confused. He took a stupid chance that didn't pay off and he lost your friendship. It's a sad story but it is the exception to the rule regardless of the hookum your friend told you. It was probably his way of disguising how he really felt for you.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Gseven
 


I am not responding to you. I will never respond to you. I am providing you with information. That is all.

The USA is not a Christian Nation! See ATS thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So is replying and responding two different things here on ATS? Or is that just a gay thing?


IGNORE

Poster just trying to be inflammatory.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
No you did not. You chose the last line, which I made in jest, to try and discredit what I said.



No, I quoted the whole post. Go look. But if that last line was such a blowoff line, why do you try to argue that point in two subsequent posts? If it was a joke, are these other posts jokes too? Shall I point them out?


I am sure you are fine with unisex showers.
Riiiight.


Yeah, maybe you should tell me what I think.


And you are one in how many millions of women on America.


How many have you asked so far? I am going to guess, given the methods you would employ just to see a naked female, NOT MANY. Do yourself a huge favor and go read this thread. You are going over things that have been beaten to death already. I made this argument already and not one female in this thread argued against me.

If you want to contribute, do so. You just told me 3 and 1/3 of your posts so far are just jokes anyway.
edit on 29-12-2010 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Gseven
 


I am not responding to you. I will never respond to you. I am providing you with information. That is all.

The USA is not a Christian Nation! See ATS thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So is replying and responding two different things here on ATS? Or is that just a gay thing?


IGNORE

Poster just trying to be inflammatory.



I'll take that as a no.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
That is easy.

According to common law. murder is the ending of another persons life with malice or intent.

Also, according to common law, killing someone without malice or intent is manslaughter.

Self defense and fighting enemy combatants is excluded from being unlawful.


What part of the bible is that from?


The ten commandments. . . you shall not murder?


Mine says "kill" but that is besides the point. I specifically asked where you definition of murder and justifiable homicide under common law is spelled out in the bible. I already pointed out that the 6th commandment is to not kill.

If you just jumped in here in the middle with no consideration of provided discussion only in an attempt to rehash done arguments, then you will soon fall on deaf ears. How does it feel to show up after the show and start doing the same act the headliner already did for a packed house?


I believe that the original language does indeed use a word that means "murder" more than it means "kill." While the KJV has great poetry, it's not an accurate translation. The Hebrew text is lo tirtzakh, the verb from the root R-Tz-Kh which applies only to illegal killings. Hence "murder" is a far better translation. Ancient Hebrew has several other verbs that are used for killing -- for instance, for killing in war, or for execution (killing in the administration of justice.) If the Commandment were meant to apply to any killing, the verb would probably have been taharog.

According to rabbi Joseph Telushkin, author of Jewish Cultural Literacy, it's thou shalt not commit murder. Most other Jewish scholars agree with that interpretation. Killing another human is not a good thing and should be avoided, but there are circumstances in which it is acceptable.

Telushkin also endorses an alternate interpretation of another commandment. He says it isn't 'thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain', but 'thou shalt not carry the name of the Lord in vain.'. This means the prohibition is not against 'goddamned hamsters!" and the like. The prohibition is against falsely claiming to do G-d's work.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
No you did not. You chose the last line, which I made in jest, to try and discredit what I said.



No, I quoted the whole post. Go look. But if that last line was such a blowoff line, why do you try to argue that point in two subsequent posts? If it was a joke, are these other posts jokes too? Shall I point them out?


I am sure you are fine with unisex showers.
Riiiight.


Yeah, maybe you should tell me what I think.


And you are one in how many millions of women on America.


How many have you asked so far? I am going to guess, given the methods you would employ just to see a naked female, NOT MANY. Do yourself a huge favor and go read this thread. You are going over things that have been beaten to death already. I made this argument already and not one female in this thread argued against me.

If you want to contribute, do so. You just told me 3 and 1/3 of your posts so far are just jokes anyway.
edit on 29-12-2010 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)


Are you really saying that you think women wouldn't balk at the idea of unisex showers? Normal women I mean!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom502
The problem I see with this, is while gays have always been in the military, now they will be a special class, and now a protected group, and then they'll have their own special clubs, and different treatment, and now they want to give classes on gayness. Most people don't care if someone is gay, but when it become a gay parade in your face and you are forced to accept it, then it will create a problem.


You hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the thinking that I see echoed the most, but you verbalized it really well. I think most people are still struggling to verbalize what it is they feel, and any attempt at doing so, gets hammered so hard that they end up straying from the original thought out of frustration and anger. Then it becomes this huge ugly mess, where everyone argues for the sake of arguing.

I see the word "bigot" being thrown around like a hot potato, but really, the only bigots I see are the ones using the word. There is no tolerance for the other views, only their interpretations of what people are trying to share. No one here, that I've seen, has EVER said they hate gays, or don't support them serving. They end up making up the argument as they go along.

Then the argument becomes this freakish version of hypocritical attacks that try to demonize war and killing on one hand, yet pro-gay-military on the other...it's not OK for straights to go war and kill the enemy, but it's OK for gays, apparently? I find it mind-boggling that the arguments I've seen presented here are dramatically anti-war, yet the level of pushing for gays to get their hands dirty with the rest of us is ruthless. So my question to them, is which is it? Will those gays who fight and kill be subjected to the same ruthless judgment as their straight counterparts, or are the only war heroes the ones who are designated by their sexual preferences? The only positive statement I've seen thus far is a mention of the first injury in the war - who happened to be gay...where's the harsh judgment for him, I wonder? Oh, he's gay...he's immune to that. I think the prejudice here is more from the gay viewpoint than anyone else.

Apparently, It's not OK to have gay friends, or even enjoy working with gays unless you support everything about their lifestyle....we've all heard the "if you're not with us, you're against us" statements before, but I never would have imagined I'd hear it from this corner.

But yet more contradiction comes into play, since nothing seems to be off limits....Christians are ruthlessly attacked on one hand, yet magically, when the argument serves the purpose, "many gays" are Christian.

We're told we can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to adhere to, yet if we all adhered to the Old Testament, gays would be stoned to death, and our enemies would be beheaded. Ironically, Jesus is mentioned over and over again to push the idea of love and acceptance (which no one has blatantly stated they hate gays or don't support them serving), but so are the Ten Commandments, in an effort to condemn killing in war, all while pushing the acceptance of the repeal of DADT...distinctly two different testaments we're dealing with here, yet Christians are the ones who are picking and choosing? The logic is baffling to me.

Anyway, thanks for posting. You brought up a very good valid feeling and stated it well.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TexasChem
I believe that the original language does indeed use a word that means "murder" more than it means "kill."


Cool, you believe something. I believe something too. Our beliefs are not the same. Isn't that neat. Now if you can show me any part of the bible that explains volunteering to kill people you are ordered to kill is justifed in the eyes of god for any reason, you might an argument. Until then, you just have what you believe. You are going to have to believe it all the way to a new thread. You are not changing my mind on it here and I am not debating it here. You had one shot and you forgot to bring your papers. Awwwwwwwwwe, that's a shame. Better luck when you start that thread though. I am rooting for you.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Annee


I've had this discussion.

Apparently - - - it is OK to kill - - in war.

It is just not OK to murder.

Feel free to justify the difference.


That is easy.

According to common law. murder is the ending of another persons life with malice or intent.

Also, according to common law, killing someone without malice or intent is manslaughter.

Self defense and fighting enemy combatants is excluded from being unlawful.



I've had the debate many times.

Don't need it in this thread.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CayceFan
Are you really saying that you think women wouldn't balk at the idea of unisex showers? Normal women I mean!


No, I am saying that I have told you 4 times now that I am not going to sit here and repeat myself to someone who openly admits they care too little to read what people respond with. How can I get that through to you?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Annee


I've had this discussion.

Apparently - - - it is OK to kill - - in war.

It is just not OK to murder.

Feel free to justify the difference.


That is easy.

According to common law. murder is the ending of another persons life with malice or intent.

Also, according to common law, killing someone without malice or intent is manslaughter.

Self defense and fighting enemy combatants is excluded from being unlawful.



I've had the debate many times.

Don't need it in this thread.


"Don't need it in this thread"?

But you originally asked someone to justifiy it, and Lemon.Fresh did just that.


Now suddenly, you don't need it?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Ever watched the movie Porky's . . . or hell, any teen movie about boys and girls?


I admit - I love the movie Porky's.

I hate "stupid" - - but that movie is hilarious. Turned hubby on to it.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

"Don't need it in this thread"?

But you originally asked someone to justifiy it, and Lemon.Fresh did just that.



NO - I didn't



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven

Originally posted by tom502
The problem I see with this, is while gays have always been in the military, now they will be a special class, and now a protected group, and then they'll have their own special clubs, and different treatment, and now they want to give classes on gayness. Most people don't care if someone is gay, but when it become a gay parade in your face and you are forced to accept it, then it will create a problem.


You hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the thinking that I see echoed the most, but you verbalized it really well. I think most people are still struggling to verbalize what it is they feel, and any attempt at doing so, gets hammered so hard that they end up straying from the original thought out of frustration and anger. Then it becomes this huge ugly mess, where everyone argues for the sake of arguing.

I see the word "bigot" being thrown around like a hot potato, but really, the only bigots I see are the ones using the word. There is no tolerance for the other views, only their interpretations of what people are trying to share. No one here, that I've seen, has EVER said they hate gays, or don't support them serving. They end up making up the argument as they go along.

Then the argument becomes this freakish version of hypocritical attacks that try to demonize war and killing on one hand, yet pro-gay-military on the other...it's not OK for straights to go war and kill the enemy, but it's OK for gays, apparently? I find it mind-boggling that the arguments I've seen presented here are dramatically anti-war, yet the level of pushing for gays to get their hands dirty with the rest of us is ruthless. So my question to them, is which is it? Will those gays who fight and kill be subjected to the same ruthless judgment as their straight counterparts, or are the only war heroes the ones who are designated by their sexual preferences? The only positive statement I've seen thus far is a mention of the first injury in the war - who happened to be gay...where's the harsh judgment for him, I wonder? Oh, he's gay...he's immune to that. I think the prejudice here is more from the gay viewpoint than anyone else.

Apparently, It's not OK to have gay friends, or even enjoy working with gays unless you support everything about their lifestyle....we've all heard the "if you're not with us, you're against us" statements before, but I never would have imagined I'd hear it from this corner.

But yet more contradiction comes into play, since nothing seems to be off limits....Christians are ruthlessly attacked on one hand, yet magically, when the argument serves the purpose, "many gays" are Christian.

We're told we can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to adhere to, yet if we all adhered to the Old Testament, gays would be stoned to death, and our enemies would be beheaded. Ironically, Jesus is mentioned over and over again to push the idea of love and acceptance (which no one has blatantly stated they hate gays or don't support them serving), but so are the Ten Commandments, in an effort to condemn killing in war, all while pushing the acceptance of the repeal of DADT...distinctly two different testaments we're dealing with here, yet Christians are the ones who are picking and choosing? The logic is baffling to me.

Anyway, thanks for posting. You brought up a very good valid feeling and stated it well.



I agree well said! Both of you!



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join