Gay sex immoral says US general

#126
#126
To add to that, "no harm inflicted", is a very vague statement.

Where do you purchase the harm measurer?
 
#127
#127
BigPapaVol said:
Nothing to add, simply disagree. His assertion flies in the face of the rule of law and the ability to enforce the rules. Can you imagine someday trying to teach responsibility to a child with this approach?

I believe St. Augustine's philosophy is a slippery slope by which men justify impropriety.
Click to expand...
So, you don't believe that it is just as slippery a slope to prohibit people from acts in which might end up harming someone, but most of the time will not?
 
#128
#128
therealUT said:
So, you don't believe that it is just as slippery a slope to prohibit people from acts in which might end up harming someone, but most of the time will not?
Click to expand...
This gets back to your ridiculous drinking and driving argument. I'm good with any slope, slippery or otherwise, that precludes that type of poor decision making.

You ever run a range? Lots of rules there to preclude what might happen. You train your unit to prepare for something that might happen.
 
#129
#129
BigPapaVol said:
This gets back to your ridiculous drinking and driving argument. I'm good with any slope, slippery or otherwise, that precludes that type of poor decision making.

You ever run a range? Lots of rules there to preclude what might happen. You train your unit to prepare for something that might happen.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have run a range. Being in the Army and being subject to the rules and regulations of the Army is a choice. Being a human being that should have the liberty to do what they choose is a God given right.
 
#130
#130
therealUT said:
Yes, I have run a range. Being in the Army and being subject to the rules and regulations of the Army is a choice. Being a human being that should have the liberty to do what they choose is a God given right.
Click to expand...
First, God gave you no rights of any kind, except to decide to follow him or follow the world. Having unfettered liberty is again what the barbarians had and I assume we're beyond that point.

As for the range, those rules exist out of prudence, not because the Army likes rules. The likelihood of an accident at the range is very remote, but you'd never consider operating fast and loose there because of what might happen. When lives are in the balance, rights matter absolutely none.
 
#131
#131
BigPapaVol said:
First, God gave you no rights of any kind, except to decide to follow him or follow the world. Having unfettered liberty is again what the barbarians had and I assume we're beyond that point.

As for the range, those rules exist out of prudence, not because the Army likes rules. The likelihood of an accident at the range is very remote, but you'd never consider operating fast and loose there because of what might happen. When lives are in the balance, rights matter absolutely none.
Click to expand...
Barbarians had unfettered liberty??? You should go back through history and fact check that statement.

Your second point has nothing to do with anything other than joining the Army is a choice!
 
#133
#133
therealUT said:
Again, Patrick Henry would be proud...
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to make Patrick Henry proud. Patrick Henry was a revolutionary. At this point in our nation's life cycle, we don't need guys who'll die for some misconception of liberty. We need people who can find ways for 300 million people to coexist somewhat peacefully and overwhelmingly productively, for that is the base of our strength.
 
#134
#134
At this point in our nation's history we have no more need for liberty??? Glad you swore an oath to defend the Constitution...
 
#135
#135
therealUT said:
Barbarians had unfettered liberty??? You should go back through history and fact check that statement.

Your second point has nothing to do with anything other than joining the Army is a choice!
Click to expand...
Nitpick all you'd like. Unfettered liberty got it's chance for a very, very long trial. The convergence of populations changed how people must interrelate.

My second point says exactly what I mean for it to say: You don't make stupid liberty type decisions when there's a chance it will cost a life, especially the life of someone who had no say in the decision.
 
#137
#137
therealUT said:
At this point in our nation's history we have no more need for liberty??? Glad you swore an oath to defend the Constitution...
Click to expand...
You're simply being argumentative and stupid. Patrick Henry was a divisive revolutionary and was needed in his day. His modern counterpart is Louis Farrakahn.

How did I ever say we need no more liberty. Our constitution's just fine, and I'm not destroying anyone's liberty. You're the concern, arguing that our set of laws curb your liberties too far. Our Constitution allows us to make laws that we must then enforce to give them teeth. How is your undermining those in any way defending the constitution or living up to some fantasyland Patrick Henry ideal.
 
#142
#142
BigPapaVol said:
Great work, keep drinking and driving or arguing for people's right to do so. That's brilliant.
Click to expand...
Do you talk on your cell phone and drive? Are you fervently trying to get that outlawed across the U.S.?

Also, I love how people automatically make the connection that anyone who is arguing for rights, must frequently commit the said act.

I am a married, heterosexual male. I have at most two drinks a week (not including the wine I imbibe during Mass every single day) and I smoke an occasional cigar. Other than that, I don't smoke cigarettes, don't do recreational drugs, and barely take any prescription medication.

I don't burn American flags, however, I am glad that Americans have the right to do so. I value liberty over life and, yes, I am more than willing to give my life to provide liberty and freedom to those who have lost the right to liberty and freedom.

But, continue to believe that anyone who argues for rights for certain minorities (drinkers, smokers, homosexuals, etc.) must certainly be a part of that minority. It certainly makes it easier for you to sleep at night.
 
#143
#143
To steer this thing back on topic...I am still wondering exactly what readiness issues would arise in allowing openly homosexual persons to enlist in the Armed Forces.

The only readiness issues I have witnessed concerning the policy about homosexuals in the Army is thus:

A month or two prior to deployment, a soldier goes in to their PL or CO's office (Open door policy) and firmly states they are a homosexual. They receive a "General Discharge" and the unit that 2 months out should have been green across the board, has now lost one combat effective soldier...
 
#144
#144
CSpindizzy said:
To add one more item to this, why isn't your feeling actual policy? Why are there limited roles for women along with limited mixed training? Why are women not in Infantry MOS's?
Click to expand...


Because there's very few of them that could make it through the physical demands of training, and effectivly carry out the job.

I would have taken women in my Artillery unit, but there's very few of them that are going to be able to load an 80lb projectile, in the back of a Howitzer..

There's women in Combat everyday in certain jobs, ie truck drivers, medics, supply personnel....
There just not in Armor, Infantry, or Artillery jobs..
 
#145
#145
As a comedian once said, "Let the gays in, because I'd like the guy that's protecting my a** to think my a** looks pretty nice."
 
#146
#146
BigPapaVol said:
Per some of your other statements you would consider almost nothing immoral, unless it directly harmed someone else and the decision maker had full knowledge of the potential harm. Sound about right?
Click to expand...
That pretty well sums it up. I think people should be free to do more or less as they please, as long as they are harming no one else.
 
#150
#150
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
That pretty well sums it up. I think people should be free to do more or less as they please, as long as they are harming no one else.
Click to expand...
Great, you've got a team with you. Who defines harm? You? Harmee vs Harmer? How about vagrants that simply take money from a government yet cause no harm? That cool? How 'bout dads that don't give a rip but aren't harming their children? That OK. Not caring or doing causes tons of thing I would consider harmful, but society would not cannot do so. How does your philisophy cover that?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top