Jerry must be so proud

[Quin]

My personal preference that I don't want a gay child is mine alone. It's a personal view that affects no one except my son, and even then, only if he's gay. And since I would never disown my son (BigSqwert would like to make it seem that way, but I never mentioned doing such a thing), it wouldn't even really affect him. If my son came out to me, I'd do whatever I could to help him, but secretly it would hurt. And in a way, there'd be part of me that would wish I'd never known about his sexuality. But that doesn't mean I'd abandon my duties as a father. That's all I said.

 

And frankly, the reason I wouldn't want an openly gay kid is because that's an extra struggle for him to face in life. Teenagers gotta enough s*** to deal with at that age without the added trouble of being gay. Why would I long for a kid that's going to be discriminated against more than he needs to be? What father would long for that for their kid? It's just a trouble he/she won't need.

 

I bring up the atheist thing because it's a judgement I could make about you (but choose not to, because I really don't care) that you wouldn't appreciate. I don't judge your atheism because as long as you don't decide to attack my Christianity, it's a personal belief of yours that doesn't affect me. Just like my internal reaction to my son's sexuality is a personal thing that doesn't affect you. And really, I don't even think your atheism is a terrible thing or whatever, because it doesn't affect me. I'm not gonna be so offended by something that doesn't affect me. However, if I chose to get in a huff about you being an atheist and tell you that it was a terrible view, I guarantee you'd cry for me to be banned and you'd whine about me judging you, while you do the very same thing to me. It's hypocritical beyond belief.

 

And then you go and try to backhandedly parallel me to some neo-Nazi punk from Stormfront. Pitiful.

 

I'm agreeing with FlySox on this one. He can be secretly hurt, knowing he wouldn't have grandchildren. Or that he wouldn't see his son get married to a woman like his father wanted. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

But as for that second part, if the kid's gay, he's gay. He's much more likely to not have his brains blown out when he can openly date and find a partner instead of having people call him gay for not having a girlfriend, so being ridiculed for what he is and not being able to be proud of himself just so he could "honor" his father.

 

 

You'd whine about being judged, and don't even act like you wouldn't. And that doesn't just apply to atheism. It applies to any view of yours that I could single out and call terrible. You'd cry nonstop about me passing judgment on you for a personal belief, while you feel free to do the same to me. It's arrogant and hypocritical.

We're not arguing facts on this thread. We're talking about personal beliefs. Again, who are you to tell me how I should feel personally? You can't name one way this belief of mine affects you, or anybody but maybe myself and my unborn son. I don't want a gay son but I'd still father him all the same if it happened that way. It doesn't even really affect him! Just me for the personal sadness that I would feel.

But you, in some twisted desire to advance your far left beliefs, try to act like I said I'd disown the kid, or something worse. And then you try to compare my beliefs to Nazism. That's absolutely outrageous.

 

Bolded I agree with. Damn good points by FlySox.

 

The unbolded part has not come up in this thread.

lol tell me more about how I'd act like a big baby, just like you!

 

 

 

No, I didn't compare your beliefs to nazism, or say you'd disown the kid. stop lying.

 

Yup.

 

What am I whining about? I'm stating my beliefs and facing constant judgment from leftist extremists like yourself. You're the one whining about my personal beliefs.

 

As for what I said, think what you want, dude. The "red blooded" part has nothing to do with it. So take it anyway you want. I know what I believe, and you don't, although you'd like to think that you do so you can continue to judge.

 

Then you were called out for judging my personal beliefs and calling me a bigot, and your response was to bring up a normal reaction to a Stormfront troll. Really sounds like you're comparing me to a Stormfront Nazi, which is just lame.

 

I'm done with you. I'm never going to agree with you, and frankly, I find you detestable. You can judge me when you've bothered to serve your country. Bye.

 

I liked this post, until the "You can judge me when you've bothered to serve your country."

 

So?

 

What the f*** does that have to do with anything related to people's moralistic beliefs and thought process? Why is a military opinion more valued than that of a non-military opinion?

 

How the f*** do you serve a country? Military only? Then we're in a military state. You can serve your country by making the lives of those around you better, by voting, by volunteering at a homeless shelter, by working at a courthouse, by teaching, by being a policeman or firefighter.

 

This "People who have served in the military have a higher moral standing" is bull.

 

(For the record, not an attack on the military, but like every other profession, it does not validate an opinion).

 

POST.OF.THE.YEAR

 

Excuse me, but who is this? No one makes an account 2 years ago and now just posts in a thread for their entire post count. If I had to guess, you're an alternate account that someone made FOUR years ago and is using to derail this thread with bestiality.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Quinarvy

[caulfield12]

It's an interesting point QUINARV made.

 

I served in AmeriCorps (the domestic version of the Peace Corps that President Clinton started) for two years and our education award was about 20% less than someone serving the same amount of time in the military would receive.

 

Which I find interesting...because if you research how many of the children of Congressman/women are actually serving on active duty in the US military (four branches), it's under 10, maybe even 5. Those same politicians who are so quick to "fly the flag" and wax patriotic are scared to death of their kids actually getting killed.

 

In the end, I get the point. I wasn't risking my life in exactly the same way...and yet volunteering everyday in Kansas City, Kansas...well, it's about the same as East St. Louis was 15-20 years ago. You can make arguments either way, depending on how you define service.

 

I guess the way I look at it is this...my dad spent his whole life in the military and was what you would call a "fiscal conservative" in the same sense Colin Powell is...and he was also a little bitter because (in his eyes) he lost advancement/promotion opportunities working for the US government in the 80's and 90's simply because he was an older, white male.

 

Yet my dad wanted to give me a great life...to have the freedom to make my own choices, not to service in the US military unless it was something I chose (and not out of economic necessity or having no other options)...I feel that being a teacher or doing non-profit/volunteer work contributes all the same to our society. Flysox made the argument about doing military service. Well, I have always felt the same way about Congress. If they spent just a week in a typical inner-city school or volunteering with a project not unlike Obama was involved with (churches, community organizing), they'd have a slightly different perspective on poverty and what was the best way to "empower" poor people.

 

 

P.S. PLEASE CONTINUE WITH PREVIOUS CONVERSATION WHICH WILL NEVER END UP CHANGING ANYONE'S VIEWPOINT BUT HAS BEEN IMMENSELY MORE ENTERTAINING THAN THE WHITE SOX 2011.

Edited July 13, 2011 by caulfield12

[hogan873]

It's been argued throughout this thread about whether being gay is a choice. I'm still baffled by those who think it is. I have a cousin who is gay...like flaming gay (he'd tell you that, so it's not an insult), and we all knew he was gay when we were kids. I can't imagine an 8-year old kid saying, "I think I'm going to be gay when I grow up."

[Quin]

It's an interesting point QUINARV made.

 

I served in AmeriCorps (the domestic version of the Peace Corps that President Clinton started) for two years and our education award was about 20% less than someone serving the same amount of time in the military would receive.

 

Which I find interesting...because if you research how many of the children of Congressman/women are actually serving on active duty in the US military (four branches), it's under 10, maybe even 5. Those same politicians who are so quick to "fly the flag" and wax patriotic are scared to death of their kids actually getting killed.

 

In the end, I get the point. I wasn't risking my life in exactly the same way...and yet volunteering everyday in Kansas City, Kansas...well, it's about the same as East St. Louis was 15-20 years ago. You can make arguments either way, depending on how you define service.

 

I guess the way I look at it is this...my dad spent his whole life in the military and was what you would call a "fiscal conservative" in the same sense Colin Powell is...and he was also a little bitter because (in his eyes) he lost advancement/promotion opportunities working for the US government in the 80's and 90's simply because he was an older, white male.

 

Yet my dad wanted to give me a great life...to have the freedom to make my own choices, not to service in the US military unless it was something I chose (and not out of economic necessity or having no other options)...I feel that being a teacher or doing non-profit/volunteer work contributes all the same to our society. Flysox made the argument about doing military service. Well, I have always felt the same way about Congress. If they spent just a week in a typical inner-city school or volunteering with a project not unlike Obama was involved with (churches, community organizing), they'd have a slightly different perspective on poverty and what was the best way to "empower" poor people.

 

 

P.S. PLEASE CONTINUE WITH PREVIOUS CONVERSATION WHICH WILL NEVER END UP CHANGING ANYONE'S VIEWPOINT BUT HAS BEEN IMMENSELY MORE ENTERTAINING THAN THE WHITE SOX 2011.

[StrangeSox]

Bolded I agree with. Damn good points by FlySox.

 

The unbolded part has not come up in this thread.

 

 

Yup.

 

Wait, how can he be making "damn good points" that I'd whine and cry about being attacked and run to get him banned, but you also say "yup" to my post mocking him for claiming that?

 

BTW, I never claimed I wasn't being judgemental, so I don't get that line of defense from flysox. It also doesn't matter if it's just a personal belief, it can still be abhorrent, and if you share it on SoxTalk, you'll be called out for it. So that excuse doesn't work, either.

Edited July 13, 2011 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Excuse me, but who is this? No one makes an account 2 years ago and now just posts in a thread for their entire post count. If I had to guess, you're an alternate account that someone made FOUR years ago and is using to derail this thread with bestiality.

Just some random troll that doesn't have to read and agree to the filibuster rules.

[The Sir]

Wow, Quin. You weren't kidding about the long post part.

 

My dad is a great guy. He's a loving, caring father who raised me well and has given me what has generally been a great life. But when I hit that low point, I didn't want to tell him. Not because I thought I'd be ridiculed or shunned by him, in fact I think it'd be just the opposite. But I didn't want my dad, a vet and a badass if there ever was one, to think I was anything less than he was. I was embarassed by my own weakness. That was just me trying to impress my father.

 

And dude, I had some reasons to keep bringing up the atheist part. I thought he was one. Guess I was wrong, but the point was to bring up a potential personal belief of his that he would not appreciate if I made judgments on. I was trying to highlight the outright hypocrisy of him judging me when we all know he wouldn't appreciate it himself.

 

As for the last part, it was he who said that not all opinions are "valid and equal". So yeah, if you've served, I take you a bit more seriously. And really I was just tired of defending myself to someone like that. Comparing me to a Nazi troll and being such a hypocrite, I was fed up. That's all I've got.

[StrangeSox]

Comparing me to a Nazi troll and being such a hypocrite, I was fed up. That's all I've got.

 

I want to make it very clear that I was not doing that. I used an extreme example to illustrate to jenks a problem with the "it's just his opinion" line of defense with an example I think everyone here can agree is a 'terrible' opinion.

[The Sir]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell and then it's repeal: I don't like the idea that professional politicians who never served in the military are trying to use the military as a social experiment to advance gay rights and add bullet points to their political resumes. The military exists to defend America and win the nation's wars. So I don't really like when I have to use time that could be spent at a range improving marksmanship skills or out in the COF (company operating facility) working on tactical maneuvers that will help more of us come home alive when we eventually deploy, to instead educate the troops on how to accept gay people. I think that's silly. But I'm glad that gay Soldiers can now inform their superiors that they are facing sexual orientation harassment without having to fear that that same superior will have them chaptered out of the military. That doesn't help that situation at all.

 

Gay marriage? You find a priest who will marry you and fine, you can be wed. But if you find a priest who believes gay marriage is absolutely prohibited, you cannot do anything to force him to change that and cave to your demands. That's my big fear here. That people who don't believe gay marriage is allowed will be forced to cave to the demands of gays and their supporters. The rights of those people need to be protected too. Assuming gay people don't try to squash the free expression of their adversaries, I don't really care. My solution to the gay marriage debate is that I won't get one.

 

But this is far different from my personal relationship with my son. That's my son. I have expectations for what he should be. I'd really like it if he was a far-right, America loving, gun toting (I'm gonna teach him how to shoot) man who has endless ambitions and as much interest in the world as I do and aspires to join the military some day. But if I'm not that lucky, I'll still love him as a son. I think any father has some dream of what he wants his son to be like. This is mine, but it doesn't determine whether I'll love the kid.

[Y2HH]

Just some random troll that doesn't have to read and agree to the filibuster rules.

 

Personally, I think it's you. The bestiality thing...it all just adds up.

[southsider2k5]

Its really too bad this thread got going again. It had really hit a nice breaking point. Instead it will probably end up getting people in trouble.

[The Sir]

Another thing I need to note:

 

My political views on DADT are irrelevant. The President of the United States has given us our marching orders and that's the end of it. If I heard of this decision and decided to do anything short of ensuring equal rights for all Soldiers regardless of sexual orientation, I would be guilty of disobeying a direct order and I'd really just be a terrible leader undeserving of Army officership. There are a lot of very opinionated, very conservative people in the military, and I am one of them. However, I know better than to mix my political beliefs with my career.

 

There was a Lieutenant Colonel a little while ago who failed to see this line, and openly refused to join his unit on its upcoming deployment unless Obama released his birth certificate. Debate on the birther movement aside, this guy's an idiot. He knew the consequences and yet he decided to use his career as the basis for a political stunt. He got released from prison a month or two ago, but his career is obviously over. He will likely face a dishonorable discharge (good luck finding employment with that one!) and a loss of all pension and benefits. Stupid, stupid move.

 

There was a First Lieutenant who came out as openly gay a few years ago and, in order to support his cause, he went and chained himself to the White House fence in uniform. Any Soldier knows that you don't attend political rallies in uniform. I wouldn't even go to an NRA conference in uniform. That's against UCMJ. Well, anyways, this guy got the boot. He wants to rejoin now that DADT is gone, but that's not why they booted him. They booted him because he was a goon who couldn't separate his personal political beliefs from his duties as an officer.

 

They're both pathetic and they both have no place in the Army. So, no matter what I think of DADT or any issue for that matter, I am sworn to follow the orders of the POTUS (whether I like him or not) and anything short of that is conduct unbecoming an officer.

[Balta1701]

There was a First Lieutenant who came out as openly gay a few years ago and, in order to support his cause, he went and chained himself to the White House fence in uniform. Any Soldier knows that you don't attend political rallies in uniform. I wouldn't even go to an NRA conference in uniform. That's against UCMJ. Well, anyways, this guy got the boot. He wants to rejoin now that DADT is gone, but that's not why they booted him. They booted him because he was a goon who couldn't separate his personal political beliefs from his duties as an officer.

While you are correct about the prohibition about in-uniform military appearing at political events, unless you're talking about a case other than Lt. Dan Choi, you're incorrect about why he was discharged. The official memos in his case are publicly available and are 100% clear that he was being discharged honorably for being in violation of the Military's policy regarding open homosexuality.

[The Sir]

While you are correct about the prohibition about in-uniform military appearing at political events, unless you're talking about a case other than Lt. Dan Choi, you're incorrect about why he was discharged. The official memos in his case are publicly available and are 100% clear that he was being discharged honorably for being in violation of the Military's policy regarding open homosexuality.

 

I stand corrected.

 

That said, I still don't want Lt Choi back, because he obviously doesn't know how to use discretion and separate his political views from his military career. Chaining yourself to the White House fence in uniform is unacceptable and he knew this.

[Jenksismyhero]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell and then it's repeal: I don't like the idea that professional politicians who never served in the military are trying to use the military as a social experiment to advance gay rights and add bullet points to their political resumes. The military exists to defend America and win the nation's wars. So I don't really like when I have to use time that could be spent at a range improving marksmanship skills or out in the COF (company operating facility) working on tactical maneuvers that will help more of us come home alive when we eventually deploy, to instead educate the troops on how to accept gay people. I think that's silly. But I'm glad that gay Soldiers can now inform their superiors that they are facing sexual orientation harassment without having to fear that that same superior will have them chaptered out of the military. That doesn't help that situation at all.

 

Gay marriage? You find a priest who will marry you and fine, you can be wed. But if you find a priest who believes gay marriage is absolutely prohibited, you cannot do anything to force him to change that and cave to your demands. That's my big fear here. That people who don't believe gay marriage is allowed will be forced to cave to the demands of gays and their supporters. The rights of those people need to be protected too. Assuming gay people don't try to squash the free expression of their adversaries, I don't really care. My solution to the gay marriage debate is that I won't get one.

 

But this is far different from my personal relationship with my son. That's my son. I have expectations for what he should be. I'd really like it if he was a far-right, America loving, gun toting (I'm gonna teach him how to shoot) man who has endless ambitions and as much interest in the world as I do and aspires to join the military some day. But if I'm not that lucky, I'll still love him as a son. I think any father has some dream of what he wants his son to be like. This is mine, but it doesn't determine whether I'll love the kid.

 

That priest would be one bigoted, discriminatory asshole, and his/her belief about the right/wrong of this issue should not be afforded any protections since they are "terrible" and "abhorrent."

 

 

 

[hogan873]

Its really too bad this thread got going again. It had really hit a nice breaking point. Instead it will probably end up getting people in trouble.

Maybe it should be closed. I think we're going in circles here. I'm not going to change the mids of those that don't agree with me, and my mind isn't going to be changed.

 

Who would have thought that Beckham horsing around with a fellow 2nd baseman would create a thread like this?

[BigSqwert]

I'm not going to change the mids of those that don't agree with me, and my mind isn't going to be changed.

 

You can say this about any thread in the buster.

[GoSox05]

That priest would be one bigoted, discriminatory asshole, and his/her belief about the right/wrong of this issue should not be afforded any protections since they are "terrible" and "abhorrent."

 

 

I've never read anything about gay couples trying to make priests marry them by force.

 

Where does this stuff come from?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I've never read anything about gay couples trying to make priests marry them by force.

 

Where does this stuff come from?

 

The same place where the ideas that discrimination only counts if you want to line people up and shoot them or that every left-leaning person here runs to mods to get people banned come from.

[StrangeSox]

That priest would be one bigoted, discriminatory asshole, and his/her belief about the right/wrong of this issue should not be afforded any protections since they are "terrible" and "abhorrent."

 

He would be a bigoted discriminating asshole. He's free to be that, and the rest of us are free to criticize that. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

[Steve9347]

You can say this about any thread in the buster.

Or about Juan Pierre if Greg is involved.

[caulfield12]

Or about Juan Pierre if Greg is involved.

 

 

Or Jenks. Or Ozzerrroo.

[The Sir]

He would be a bigoted discriminating asshole. He's free to be that, and the rest of us are free to criticize that. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

 

Tell me, what do you think of San Francisco's Hunk Jesus Festival? I've mentioned it before. It's an annual thing where gays get together and mock the Hell out of Christian beliefs. Is that not an example of them being bigoted assholes? Or is it OK because they aren't white, conservative Christians?

 

Tolerance is a two way street. Yet why do I feel you're going to claim this sacrilegious festival is completely acceptable? Please, feel free to prove me wrong.

[bigruss]

Tell me, what do you think of San Francisco's Hunk Jesus Festival? I've mentioned it before. It's an annual thing where gays get together and mock the Hell out of Christian beliefs. Is that not an example of them being bigoted assholes? Or is it OK because they aren't white, conservative Christians?

 

Tolerance is a two way street. Yet why do I feel you're going to claim this sacrilegious festival is completely acceptable? Please, feel free to prove me wrong.

FlySox, I think the biggest problem many people have with you here is that you assume wayyyy to much. You assume he's an atheist, you assume he will hate this, or that, etc. Stop assuming and stereotyping and you may actually learn something, or actually have an insightful discussion and not just personal attacks on posters.

[StrangeSox]

Tell me, what do you think of San Francisco's Hunk Jesus Festival? I've mentioned it before. It's an annual thing where gays get together and mock the Hell out of Christian beliefs. Is that not an example of them being bigoted assholes? Or is it OK because they aren't white, conservative Christians?

 

Tolerance is a two way street. Yet why do I feel you're going to claim this sacrilegious festival is completely acceptable? Please, feel free to prove me wrong.

 

Evangelical atheism annoys the hell out of me, but I really don't know what you're referring to here.