Gay sex immoral says US general

#151
#151
therealUT said:
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.
Click to expand...
My position toward you could probably be best defined as absolute indifference. I don't care about you nor do I take the time to contemplate your life prior to making any posts. Simply, I assume nothing about you when I say you're asinine when you argue for drinking and driving. I believe that whether you do it or not. You're not the only around here to argue for groups of which you are not a part. In fact, that's what most of us do here regularly.
 
#152
#152
therealUT said:
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...
Click to expand...
The argument has historically been that implicit trust of fellow soldiers is paramount and homosexuality would betray that trust. The Army has sold that for years and lawmakers have bought it. It's a garbage argument that will eventually be overturned. Nonetheless, is does carry some weight when you think of the education levels / open-mindedness (or lack thereof) of those filling the ranks of the military. There are tons of very bright and very open minded soldiers out there, but I wouldn't say that of the vast majority. I'm not arguing against homosexual inclusion, but I do think it would be a long and difficult transition.
 
#153
#153
BigPapaVol said:
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?
Click to expand...


Party Pooper!

:p
 
#154
#154
If gay sex is immoral, why does OrangeEmpire partake in it all the time?
 
#162
#162
BigPapaVol said:
My position toward you could probably be best defined as absolute indifference. I don't care about you nor do I take the time to contemplate your life prior to making any posts. Simply, I assume nothing about you when I say you're asinine when you argue for drinking and driving. I believe that whether you do it or not. You're not the only around here to argue for groups of which you are not a part. In fact, that's what most of us do here regularly.
Click to expand...
Less than 1/3 of all traffic accidents leading to fatalities involve "influenced" (intoxicated would be even less) drunk drivers. Yet, I would argue that over 50% of municipal and county police budgets are spent in cracking down on drunk driving.

Why are we not cracking down on eating and driving, applying makeup and driving, reading and driving, drinking coffee and driving, changing CDs and driving, removing billboards and other distractions from the sides of the roads, etc.?

My guess for the reasoning behind this would be that most people don't feel that eating, applying makeup, reading, listening to music, and drinking coffee are sins in their own right. A lot of neo-puritans in America however see drinking alcohol, no matter how little or great, as a sin in it's own right. This thought process would be backed up by the fact that statistics showing "Alcohol Related Deaths" account for only the fact that there was a detectable BAC. Yet, the statistics that show "Deaths in which the driver had a greater that .08 BAC" are materially different.
 
#164
#164
therealUT said:
Less than 1/3 of all traffic accidents leading to fatalities involve "influenced" (intoxicated would be even less) drunk drivers. Yet, I would argue that over 50% of municipal and county police budgets are spent in cracking down on drunk driving.

Why are we not cracking down on eating and driving, applying makeup and driving, reading and driving, drinking coffee and driving, changing CDs and driving, removing billboards and other distractions from the sides of the roads, etc.?

My guess for the reasoning behind this would be that most people don't feel that eating, applying makeup, reading, listening to music, and drinking coffee are sins in their own right. A lot of neo-puritans in America however see drinking alcohol, no matter how little or great, as a sin in it's own right. This thought process would be backed up by the fact that statistics showing "Alcohol Related Deaths" account for only the fact that there was a detectable BAC. Yet, the statistics that show "Deaths in which the driver had a greater that .08 BAC" are materially different.
Click to expand...
I'm not making a purtanical stand against drinking in general, I think drinking and driving is irresponsible, reckless and absolutely dangerous. You got a big stat about single car accidents? Besides, if we were banning all things dangerous to other drivers, women would be completely disallowed from driving SUVs.

I understand that distractions cause accidents and that most are not solely attributable to BAC, but the odds are dramatically different after a certain amount of consumption, period. Here's big problem with your debate: people who drink and drive are starting out with the responsiveness of someone tuning the radio and they haven't even started with the typical distractions that drivers lock onto - when they do, look out. Drunkenness also dismisses natural inhibitions (hence sorority girl jokes), makes them more aggressive (hence bar fights happen much more often than restaurant fights) and dampens natural defense mechanisms all of which are negative to the driver and even moreso others on the road. Comparing D&D to tuning and driving is absurd and shallow. The unfortunate part is that you know that and are arguing for argument's sake.
 
#165
#165
BigPapaVol said:
I'm not making a purtanical stand against drinking in general, I think drinking and driving is irresponsible, reckless and absolutely dangerous. You got a big stat about single car accidents? Besides, if we were banning all things dangerous to other drivers, women would be completely disallowed from driving SUVs.

I understand that distractions cause accidents and that most are not solely attributable to BAC, but the odds are dramatically different after a certain amount of consumption, period. Here's big problem with your debate: people who drink and drive are starting out with the responsiveness of someone tuning the radio and they haven't even started with the typical distractions that drivers lock onto - when they do, look out. Drunkenness also dismisses natural inhibitions (hence sorority girl jokes), makes them more aggressive (hence bar fights happen much more often than restaurant fights) and dampens natural defense mechanisms all of which are negative to the driver and even moreso others on the road. Comparing D&D to tuning and driving is absurd and shallow. The unfortunate part is that you know that and are arguing for argument's sake.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol: So true!!!!!!!!!
 
#166
#166
BigPapaVol said:
I'm not making a purtanical stand against drinking in general, I think drinking and driving is irresponsible, reckless and absolutely dangerous. You got a big stat about single car accidents? Besides, if we were banning all things dangerous to other drivers, women would be completely disallowed from driving SUVs.

I understand that distractions cause accidents and that most are not solely attributable to BAC, but the odds are dramatically different after a certain amount of consumption, period. Here's big problem with your debate: people who drink and drive are starting out with the responsiveness of someone tuning the radio and they haven't even started with the typical distractions that drivers lock onto - when they do, look out. Drunkenness also dismisses natural inhibitions (hence sorority girl jokes), makes them more aggressive (hence bar fights happen much more often than restaurant fights) and dampens natural defense mechanisms all of which are negative to the driver and even moreso others on the road. Comparing D&D to tuning and driving is absurd and shallow. The unfortunate part is that you know that and are arguing for argument's sake.
Click to expand...
Could you explain to me why percentage of fatal car crashes, per age group, involving an intoxicated driver only jumps above 25% at the 20-24 year old mark, remains above 25% through 60, and then drops off again?

I would have to argue that most of those who are killed due to drunk driving, are killed because they are out drinking and putting themselves on the roads at 2 in the morning. I would also have to believe that because of these statistics, most drunk drivers are simply killing themselves and their friends who choose to get in the car with them.

Why should the government be spending my tax dollars to keep someone from killing themselves?
 
#167
#167
therealUT said:
Could you explain to me why percentage of fatal car crashes, per age group, involving an intoxicated driver only jumps above 25% at the 20-24 year old mark, remains above 25% through 60, and then drops off again?

I would have to argue that most of those who are killed due to drunk driving, are killed because they are out drinking and putting themselves on the roads at 2 in the morning. I would also have to believe that because of these statistics, most drunk drivers are simply killing themselves and their friends who choose to get in the car with them.

Why should the government be spending my tax dollars to keep someone from killing themselves?
Click to expand...

You left out drunk dialing you animal.
 
#169
#169
I look at the topic and then the last few posts and notice we've digressed....

In the words of the great George HW Bush..."stay the course"
 
#170
#170
therealUT said:
Could you explain to me why percentage of fatal car crashes, per age group, involving an intoxicated driver only jumps above 25% at the 20-24 year old mark, remains above 25% through 60, and then drops off again?

I would have to argue that most of those who are killed due to drunk driving, are killed because they are out drinking and putting themselves on the roads at 2 in the morning. I would also have to believe that because of these statistics, most drunk drivers are simply killing themselves and their friends who choose to get in the car with them.

Why should the government be spending my tax dollars to keep someone from killing themselves?
Click to expand...
You've proven it. Timing is everything.

How about 16-19 types die more due to inexperience / inability / Low Situational Awareness and peer pressure than any other reason. Additionally, fewer drink and drive in that age group because their parents still have some influence given that most live at home and underage drinking is still against the law.

60 and over types aren't dying as much in drunk driving related accidents because they cause very few themselves and are more often involved in drinking related accident caused by the other driver (not so in the groups 25% and above). This group also has the lowSA problem, resulting in a huge percentage of their accidents, much like the 19 and under set. LowSA is likely the top killer and absolutely has to be the worst in those two groups, thus edging out the sh1thead drunk drivers to a VERY AGREEABLE 24% of fatalities.
 
#171
#171
BigPapaVol said:
You've proven it. Timing is everything.

How about 16-19 types die more due to inexperience / inability / Low Situational Awareness and peer pressure than any other reason. Additionally, fewer drink and drive in that age group because their parents still have some influence given that most live at home and underage drinking is still against the law.

60 and over types aren't dying as much in drunk driving related accidents because they cause very few themselves and are more often involved in drinking related accident caused by the other driver (not so in the groups 25% and above). This group also has the lowSA problem, resulting in a huge percentage of their accidents, much like the 19 and under set. LowSA is likely the top killer and absolutely has to be the worst in those two groups, thus edging out the sh1thead drunk drivers to a VERY AGREEABLE 24% of fatalities.
Click to expand...
You have just proven my point that most drunk driving fatalities are the drunk drivers, and his/her passengers, are killing themselves.

Thank you.
 
#172
#172
therealUT said:
You have just proven my point that most drunk driving fatalities are the drunk drivers, and his/her passengers, are killing themselves.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
That's the worst inference I've ever even heard of. Drunk drivers survive more often than their victims. I'm simply saying that the two singled out classes have an inordinate number of accidents because of lowSA making it very hard for drunks to crack the 25% plateau.

Either way, this has nothing to do with our RIGHT to drink and drive, which is where this started. Statistics don't change the fact that it is reckless, dangerous and wrong.
 
#173
#173
FOXSports.com - Ben Maller

Tony Dungy just spoke for a group saying he opposes gay marriage and supports an amendment to define marraige between a man and a woman.

Now I like him even more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and in a big suprise a gay rights group criticized him for accepting an invite to appear at the event.

Maybe this gets us back to the topic :)
 
#174
#174
BigPapaVol said:
That's the worst inference I've ever even heard of. Drunk drivers survive more often than their victims. I'm simply saying that the two singled out classes have an inordinate number of accidents because of lowSA making it very hard for drunks to crack the 25% plateau.

Either way, this has nothing to do with our RIGHT to drink and drive, which is where this started. Statistics don't change the fact that it is reckless, dangerous and wrong.
Click to expand...
So, we are Constitutionally prohibited in engaging in reckless and dangerous activities? First time I have heard of that.
 
#175
#175
JZVOL said:
FOXSports.com - Ben Maller

Tony Dungy just spoke for a group saying he opposes gay marriage and supports an amendment to define marraige between a man and a woman.

Now I like him even more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and in a big suprise a gay rights group criticized him for accepting an invite to appear at the event.

Maybe this gets us back to the topic :)
Click to expand...
Yes, our legislative officials should spend their time writing dictionaries...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top