DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That's still less than 2 standard deviations.
Don't ask, don't tell
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Because queers and their enablers insist that their behavior is normal, which is a lie. Liars can't be trusted.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Because queers and their enablers insist that their behavior is natural, which is a lie. Liars can't be trusted.
Canceled.LTroll.10
Banned
I don't need to ask, and I never tell.
More non sequitur bullshit.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Nah, you just lost the debate is all.
Canceled.LTroll.10
Banned
There was a debate?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Nah, you just lost the debate is all.
Lost? The definition of losing a debate is to use the same excuses over and over, even after they have been shown to be bogus.
Unhealthy, immoral, abnormal, and unnatural have been your standing arguments.
Unhealthy? The military's job is war. Nothing healthy about war. But if we look beyond that, there is no mention of busting all the straights for sodomy. There is no mention that sodomy can be done in ways that are not a health risk. And there is no mention of the fact that the military already has laws against sodomy, but that does not necessarily mean gays cannot serve. The ACT of sodomy is illegal in the military. Being gay does not break that rule.
Immoral? Again, the military's job is war. War means killing people and destroying their ability to fight back. I think those are far less moral than being gay. And again, the only restrictions against homosexuality from a moral standpoint would be religious ones.
Abnormal? Since when is "normal" all we allow in the military?
Unnatural? That has already been disproven. But you can also look at Damo's comment about "bombing people is not natural" for another reason this is a bogus reason for denying gays the ability to serve.
Canceled.LTroll.10
Banned
Poor SM. He's been in the closet so long.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
For once you're right.
Its illegal to have sex in public... these dorms are fairly public.
Nah, you just lost the debate is all.
Not possible when you fail to offer any argument. All you do is make assertions. All of those have been countered and your only response is more baseless assertions.
Normal and natural are issues YOU brought up. I don't ever recall hearing any advocate of equal rights raising the issues of whether homosexuality is normal or natural. Those are the talking points of homophobes.
You are claiming that the relevance of your assertion is found in the fact that others deny the validity of your assertion. That is just circular, non sequitur bullshit.
You are not going to win any debate with this grade school garbage. I don't even feel as if you have entered the debate. I thought you were chicken shit but maybe this is just the best you have to offer.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
LOL Your insults prove my point again, loser.
You appear to be backing off on your normal and natural assertions, since after debating these same points for several days you're now attempting to claim that they are not part of the debate.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
As has been pointed out numerous times, your arguments have been shot down over and over and over.
Your hatred of homsexuals is obvious. Luckily, our gov't operates on different guidelines. Your closed minded views are doomed.
Yeah, your usual method for exiting. What insult? I have only attacked your arguments. If you are too sensitive to handle that then this might not be the place for you.
Normal and natural are part of the debate because you raised the issues. I am not backing off anything. They are still not valid. They are also not relevant and your reasoning for their relevance is complete nonsense.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, no.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You stated: "I thought you were chicken shit", which is clearly an insult. Since you can't admit that, its no wonder that you can't admit defeat.
Then you claim that I'm being sensitive, which is a deflection of the fact that you lamely insulted me.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Actually, yes.
Want them again?
Your arguments are that homosexuality is not normal, its unhealthy, its unnatural, and its immoral.
Normal is not a standard used for admission into the military any more than it is a standard for marriage. This is not an excuse for not allowing gays to join the military. It is not applied to straights, so the application of this standard to gays shows the double standard for which you have become known.
Unhealthy is another relative term. Joining the military is not a healthy practice to begin with. The job is to go to war. And the only way you can call homosexuality unhealthy is to focus solely on the sex acts. There are ways of making the sex acts less unhealthy, if that were truly an issue. But sodomy is already against the UCMJ. But barring admission into the military because you think they MIGHT commit sodomy is ridiculous. And if you removed all the straights who had committed sodomy you would not have a military.
Unnatural is a joke. It has been shown that homosexuality is a natural occurance in many species. And it is not just for dominance. The National Geographic Society has shown numerous examples of the behavior in the wild.
The only way that homosexuality can be said to be immoral is to use the bible as a source for laws. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
Ok, so now I have, once more, given you the reasons why the reasons you have given are bogus and show a double standard.
You stated: "I thought you were chicken shit", which is clearly an insult. Since you can't admit that, its no wonder that you can't admit defeat.
Then you claim that I'm being sensitive, which is a deflection of the fact that you lamely insulted me.
I THOUGHT you were chicken shit because you failed to engage or offer any real debate. I am attacking the quality of the arguments you have offered. Further, I even indicated that my perception is apparently not true. It seems these weak feints are all you have.
If that is too insulting for you to continue the debate (and again I would not even say you have begun the debate) then, yes, you are far too sensitive.