Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right now, President Obama is focused on more pressing matters, such as the economy, national health care, 2 Dick Cheney wars that are bleeding this country to death, jobs.
Right-wingers continue their meaningless, baseless criticism of a man who is accomplishing the things that no Republcan could conceive of doing. Pathetic.
So instead of a valid reason, you offer nothing but excuses...
It would take all of 10 minutes to sign a bill to do so.. heck, he could sign the bill while sitting on the crapper thereby nto taking anytime away from his precious schedule dealing with crap he ASKED FOR..
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." Retired Marine Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
According to a gay I worked with when I asked him why being atracted to the same sex do men act/dress or talk like women and the women act/dress or talk like men, he laughed and said ADVERTISING.
I don't think I understand your meaning, but I wonder what is going on in peoples minds when advertising is a stand alone issue. The consequence of advertising will mean that 90% hetero population will magically convert to homosexuality because it's advertised as 'more popular'? I take that guys statement of advertising to mean he'd like to have a gay/lesbian community relationship without hetero's imposing our two cents in their relationships. I'd rather not be the albatross in the room between them if two guys want to be together. May I be excused?
I believe heteros will remain heteros no matter the advertisement. We are what we are. How much harassment anyone should have to endure-- if a woman says no, it means no. If a man says no, it means no. Same should be true for homosexual conduct in the grander scheme of our shared world. A man grabbing my behind on a subway car should be arrested. A gay grabbing a mans behind on a subway car should also be arrested. The offense is equal.
The steam of homophobia comes to it's legitimacy when you consider that personal hygiene in communities is sorted out by gender for communities in the form of wash rooms, locker rooms, berthing areas in military etc. I would not want to share a berthing area with males who view women as porn stars. I don't think it's right to be forced to dress in front of other males. I believe male modesty is also in question when openly gay males share a berthing area and oogle heterosexuals as if their buddies were sexual potentials.
Military having unisex bathrooms would mean those urinals would have stalls. Unisex berthing areas would mean private dressing areas. I would caution those who mean to force unisex berthing on this one fact-- being a soldier/ sailor is wearing self discipline for sustained periods of time. There are few moments of relief in a day where that burden can be laid down and simply be yourself for a while. Think of it as a human ventilation system. Whatever venting males need to do in their berthing area, I'd rather not intrude. Please be yourself.
"If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe.
For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness"
"Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced"
Sir John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Law of Moses
FANTASTIC! It's about time someone in Washington got good sense. The idiotic anti-gay policies of the past have cost our Military some of its best people. To make up for that loss, the Military has had to relax standards, letting in all sorts of people who really shouldn't be given advanced weapons training. I'm talking about creatures from foreign countries who will use their weapons training when they REJOIN their gangs. You see what's happening in Mexico, with the armed paramilitary drug gangs? Well, we could easily have that sort of thing here, if the Military keeps training marginals. Welcoming gays will help prevent that.
In many Asian countries, the ONLY significant crime problems are around American Military bases...because of what the Military has been forced to recruit, to make up for the gays it rejected. When American soldiers rape/impregnate/marry foreign women, it ends up costing us.
And remember that the Military is an employer. I love having gay employees, because they are generally single: no loud-mouthed little wives popping in and disrupting the offices...no needy little wives calling every other hour, on my time...no stupid little spouses dropping in with the screaming brats, so everybody in the office can "see them"...no insurance load to cover the little sows and the screaming brats. No baby showers, in the freakin' office, on my time.... None of the rushing home as soon as the business day is over, to coach little Bubba's Little League whatever... No fights with Princess Tonya in the parking lot (with the rest of the office crowded at the windows, watching, on my time)... None of the back-biting/in-fighting/mean-girl nonsense my female employees seem incapable of restraining themselves from indulging in...No Valentine's Day nonsense... no showing of baby pictures... No desktops rendered useless and unsightly by endless tacky, sentimental crap...
Instead, my gay guys are the ones in the offices 'til one in the morning, working on critical projects... in the offices on weekends, breaking new ground... breaking through conceptual barriers and exponentially increasing our viability (being amply compensated, for their effectiveness, I might add)...Attending catered office parties and Holiday restaurant gatherings ALONE(even if unattached, the straights ALWAYS bring a date), saving me big bucks... Gays are dream employees, and it was absurd for the Military to discourage the ideal career soldiers (the soldiers, I might add, who won't be leaving expensive dependents...).
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." Retired Marine Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
He also said of Donald Rumsfeld "He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country".
I could care less what some homophobic bigot who apparently wants some sort of theocratic Christian government thinks about homosexuals.
I know. They estimate that there are around 65,000 gay people serving in the US armed forces right now.
I find it funny (not good funny) that while they're out there fighting for our freedom, there are some many at home (JimMe, workingclasshero, jetgraphics, etc...) fighting against theirs.
Sweeping generalizations aside, my comments did not impugn anyone's rights. Merely made the point that distrust may be the basis for not wanting to serve with homosexuals.
And all public service is a privilege, not a right. Those who are served are not obligated to accept service from everyone, and may refuse it, for whatever reason. That is why the servant is more regulated and restricted than the master.
If you wish to make inaccurate accusations, such acts impugn your honor, not mine.
"If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread, we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe.
For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness"
"Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced"
Sir John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Law of Moses
Really?
Some good old 1700's biblical philosophy promoting the idea of Mosaic Law (the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law).
You've got to be some die-hard liberal just trying to make right-wingers look bad, right???
Agree 100% Jet. My comments were equally ignored. It would appear a special interest group is only concerned with itself, and not the grander scheme or the mission statement as a nation. This is unfortunate, because as gloria pointed out, there is a way for all to be respectful in service. That govt policy would be used/abused by either christian fundies or gays or women expecting preferential treatment that subordinates the mission itself in service to them--- that's where it goes wrong on all sides.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
