Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

alarmingrick wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Never mind the fact that if that same homosexual (you can call him gay if it makes you feel better) is much more likely to infect everyone in his squad if he gets splatted by a roadside bomb because he had unprotected sex with his "husband" before he deployed.

i'm with MrDwhitey on this. you asume the Gay soldier was allowed to get married. and notice how their Ass is in the same sling that his squad is in?
Do you think they're going to all bust out of a closet and come runnin' for you? seriously?

i have to tell you before and after that little 'Gayrade' of your's, you're pretty spot on in my opinion. Just remember that there are thousands of Gays/Lesbians
who would love the ability to fight and die for this country. but due to Bassackward thinking of homophobes they can't even work as translators.

as you were....

My "little gay tirade" as you put it is is not about gays but about aids. We kick out intravenous drug users because they have a higher risk for aids, we do not and did not in the past attempt to rehabilitate them. So who do we no make an exception for gay males who ARE a higher risk population for aids. You ever been at ground zero of one of yours bleeding all over the place and everyone trying to keep him alive in a bad situation? How do you think the thought of the one bleeding all over his squad trying to keep him alive is going to play out to the rest of that squad when they are wiping the blood off of them and they later find out he came up positive for aids? It will happen.

Amusingly, Heterosexuals can also be irresponsible when it comes to sex.

I looked at your chart. The percentage of minorities was 2 points short of doubled in the last 10 years. You will notice they did not chart the economic backgrounds of the recruits, it would have been painful.

Don't get me wrong , I love those troops but this war will never end as long as poor families are fighting it. I know the troops, they are patriotic, they are family men but those who run this country do not care for them.

You know that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:Amusingly, Heterosexuals can also be irresponsible when it comes to sex.

Yes they can and they often are, but their chances of catching aids is way lower than a homosexual male. Their changes of wearing a condom are also way higher. Ask the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm


Automatically Appended Next Post:
25 times higher chance of getting AIDS than a heterosexual male.

Would you consider that a significant enough risk factor and what do you think that stat will do to the Army health care system?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM males having sex with males in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection.

They army will filter out those who have it when they enlist.

They will not be able to stop the behavior of unprotected sex with very highly infected populations both in America and overseas where the laws prohibiting gay sex means nobody in the local populations goes to get checked.

The gap in time between infection and detection means when someone gets hit it kills a squad.

That is my problem with aids and gays. A moral man would use protection but I think you have to agree that is not the statistically average young gay man, at home in America or deployed far away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
snip

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, while Latinos make up 9.5 percent of the actively enlisted forces, they are over-represented in the categories that get the most dangerous assignments -- infantry, gun crews and seamanship -- and make up over 17.5 percent of the front lines.

These worries have been exacerbated during the recent conflict in Iraq. As of Aug. 28, Department of Defense (DOD) statistics show a casualty rate of more than 13 percent for people of Hispanic background serving in Iraq.

snip

Another tactic suspected of targeting Hispanics is an executive order signed by U.S. President George W. Bush in July 2002, expediting naturalization for aliens and non-citizen nationals who serve in active-duty status during the administration's ''war on terrorism''.

snip

Department officials strenuously denied that the order was targeted at the Hispanic population.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0922-02.htm

Last post good night all, no malice intended. I was overboard with you CPT, I apologize.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:I looked at your chart. The percentage of minorities was 2 points short of doubled in the last 10 years. You will notice they did not chart the economic backgrounds of the recruits, it would have been painful.

Don't get me wrong , I love those troops but this war will never end as long as poor families are fighting it. I know the troops, they are patriotic, they are family men but those who run this country do not care for them.

You know that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:Amusingly, Heterosexuals can also be irresponsible when it comes to sex.

Yes they can and they often are, but their chances of catching aids is way lower than a homosexual male. Their changes of wearing a condom are also way higher. Ask the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm


Automatically Appended Next Post:
25 times higher chance of getting AIDS than a heterosexual male.

Would you consider that a significant enough risk factor and what do you think that stat will do to the Army health care system?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM males having sex with males in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection.

They army will filter out those who have it when they enlist.

They will not be able to stop the behavior of unprotected sex with very highly infected populations both in America and overseas where the laws prohibiting gay sex means nobody in the local populations goes to get checked.

The gap in time between infection and detection means when someone gets hit it kills a squad.

That is my problem with aids and gays. A moral man would use protection but I think you have to agree that is not the statistically average young gay man, at home in America or deployed far away.

Are you saying that gay males are immoral? Thats what I just picked up from your statement, and I have to say that came across as offensive to me, having quite a few gay friends, none of whom I would call immoral.

It's like it's 1982 all over again.

Ahtman wrote:It's like it's 1982 all over again.

"Hard to say I'm Sorry" by Chicago is a number one hit?

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It's like it's 1982 all over again.

"Hard to say I'm Sorry" by Chicago is a number one hit?

In my heart it is MR, in my heart.

Didn't you guys know? Aids is the only debilitating blood borne disease that one could ever contract from someone bleeding all over them.

Honestly there are so many things wrong with NoI's gay-rade that it's hard to pick a place to start.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:25 times higher chance of getting AIDS than a heterosexual male.

The latest liberal crusade on AIDS is not to identify risky behavior and inform people of their increased risk, it's to make the case that AIDS affects everyone and targetting efforts in those communities most affected is racist and "homophobic."

Unfortunately, this doesn't actually do anything to reduce the prevalence of AIDS in gay and urban (mostly African-American) communities where AIDS is booming.

AIDS is a predominantly gay disease, and if you're going to insist on spending government money on the issue, gay communities should be informed that their way of life (particularly as to promiscuity and safe sex) is dangerous. Interestingly, lesbians tend to be far less promiscuous than gay men. Other physical differences also reduce the chance of AIDS transmission.

I'm in full agreement that people should practice safe sex and be educated further on the subject.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:My "little gay tirade" as you put it is is not about gays but about aids.

However, the revealing bits were your thinly veiled contempt when using commas to refer to a gay person's married partner ( "husbands" ) was clearly dismissinve an indicated you don't believe in the equal validity of that relationship to a heterosexual marriage.

Or maybe you'd like to explain referring to wanting to avoid serving in the forces because you might have to sleep alongside...

another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more

When you grow up please come back any pull your homophobic head out your ass you'll be welcome in civilised society. Next time you start typing with the intent to spray a toxic shower of bs around a thread please leave a warning so that people with more than a few braincells do not have their intelligences blunted by reading your vile tirade of ignorant crap.

I can see the point of your concern with AIDS, but homosexuality isn't immoral.

I will warrant that NOI is a man of faith. Only people that think your sexuality is a "life style choice" can show such distaste.

I mean, I'm a manly man, but disliking gay people is ridiculous. You might as well dislike people with brown hair.

And you know how I know it? I LOVE women, and women love me.

I'm a slave to my sexuality, it demands I try to sleep with women. If im walking down the street and a hot woman bends over to pick a coin up, something in my brain demands I check her ass out. When anti-gay people say "Oh nobody is really gay, its just a lifestyle choice" I find it offensive, because even though I like gay people, I'm not gay myself. And if you claim its just a "lifestyle choice" and not that you are biologically wired to find men attractive, your basically saying

"Matty likes woman, but he could happily go for some cock as well"

Its stupid. Some men find men attractive, big fething deal. Its not like they are pretending they like smoking bloke because they want to needlessly annoy people.

Oh yeah, and how did my "should we really spend even more money on the armed forces or are they treated adequately already" thread turn into this?

General reminder in this controversial thread: Please remember that discussion requires the courtesy of all who choose to participate -- and that courtesy, or at least not being rude, is a requirement of using Dakka Dakka.

Thanks.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more

So why are gay men of "obvious low moral character" then?

mattyrm wrote: Oh yeah, and how did my "should we really spend even more money on the armed forces or are they treated adequately already" thread turn into this?

It was this or religion vs. atheism or conservative vs. liberal google wars.

I find this to be a refreshing change of pace.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:My "little gay tirade" as you put it is is not about gays but about aids.

However, the revealing bits were your thinly veiled contempt when using commas to refer to a gay person's married partner ( "husbands" ) was clearly dismissinve an indicated you don't believe in the equal validity of that relationship to a heterosexual marriage.

Or maybe you'd like to explain referring to wanting to avoid serving in the forces because you might have to sleep alongside...

another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more

When you grow up please come back any pull your homophobic head out your ass you'll be welcome in civilised society. Next time you start typing with the intent to spray a toxic shower of bs around a thread please leave a warning so that people with more than a few braincells do not have their intelligences blunted by reading your vile tirade of ignorant crap.

This, seconded. Your posts leave me wondering how someone can pretend to be approaching this from an objective angle, when your comments are literally saturated with what seems to be homophobic disdain and disgust.

Melissia wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more

So why are gay men of "obvious low moral character" then?

I thought he was referring to all draftees being "obviously of low moral character." Especially because of the "and has not but fethed another male" clause.

Although there's nothing inherently wrong with accusing people who engage in homosexual behavior as being "immoral." This was the prevailing attitude throughout much of the world for the last several thousand years.

biccat wrote:
Although there's nothing inherently wrong with accusing people who engage in homosexual behavior as being "immoral."

Well. Depending on you personal belief in the objectivity or subjectivity of morality.

If there's nothing inherently wrong with hating or denigrating someone else for their choice of sexuality, there's also nothing inherently wrong with the concept of bayoneting babies and eating them.

However, in the same way we've progressed from the Aztecs ritually sacrificing people to the Gods, and occasional cannibalism in Africa, I'd hope we've progressed (or are progressing) from homohobia. Using the justification that something has been done before for a period of time in the past, and has nothing inherently wrong with it, justifies both of those things as well, after all.

biccat wrote:Although there's nothing inherently wrong with accusing people who engage in homosexual behavior as being "immoral." This was the prevailing attitude throughout much of the world for the last several thousand years.

Yeah, and it was also the prevailing attitude that slavery was okay for about that long too. Same with using women as chattel and beating one's wife. Heck even murdering one's wife was okay as long as you had even a flimsy justification in many places. Still is. A moral stance has to be held on its own merits, tradition alone is worth less than nothing.

Ketara wrote:If there's nothing inherently wrong with hating or denigrating someone else for their choice of sexuality, there's also nothing inherently wrong with the concept of bayoneting babies and eating them.

I don't have a problem with people finding blacks, homosexuals, Republicans, or Frenchmen immoral. This is not a problem in need of correction.

But when someone engages in positive discrimination it's our duty as individually moral human beings to reject the behavior we find objectionable.

When discrimination turns to violence, then it's time for the government to step in and stop the behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Yeah, and it was also the prevailing attitude that slavery was okay for about that long too.

Slavery's been around for as long as one creature realized it could dominate another. But if you want to take the position that slavery is morally acceptable, I have no problem with that.

biccat wrote:
Although there's nothing inherently wrong with accusing people who engage in homosexual behavior as being "immoral." This was the prevailing attitude throughout much of the world for the last several thousand years.

Its 2011, what the hell has s few thousand years of idiocy got to do with it? Flat earth, black bile yellow bile, women voting.. thats a ridiculous argument frankly. I think I could make a cast iron case that it most definitely is wrong to call people who are homosexual immoral. Its very obviously silly.

As far as I'm concerned It's flat out fething stupid is what it is. And its all thanks to the stone age gift that just keeps on giving, be it witch burning, never ending wars or suicide bombs, yes you guessed it, its organised R.....

Oh wait ive said that before.

Yeah its just dumb!

Ketara wrote:
If there's nothing inherently wrong with hating or denigrating someone else for their choice of sexuality, there's also nothing inherently wrong with the concept of bayoneting babies and eating them.

That's true, though one could argue that bayoneting babies for the purpose of consumption is right, or at least not wrong, under a far smaller set of circumstances than hate and denigration on grounds of sexuality. Notably, most people have little problem hating and denigrating pedophiles, but would only consider the consumption of infants not wrong under something like Donner Party circumstances.

mattyrm wrote:As far as I'm concerned It's flat out fething stupid is what it is. And its all thanks to the stone age gift that just keeps on giving, be it witch burning, never ending wars or suicide bombs, yes you guessed it, its organised R.....

Most people who have been killed due to morality are those who reject the majority moral position, not those who embrace it.

Is discrimination based on morality any better than discrimination based on sexual orientation?

biccat wrote:When discrimination turns to violence, then it's time for the government to step in and stop the behaviour.

All discrimination based on arbitary things like colour and orientation are wrong, discrimination in such cases should be stopped well before it becomes violent. Extreme discrimination can involve all sorts of non-violent behaviour such as smearing a person false allegations and subjecting them to a verbal and written abuse, organising boycotts again them, refusing them custom on the basis of skin colour or orientation, sacking a person from a job, refusing to employ someone based on their colour, refusing all sorts of basic rights that are the norm for others and a whole multitude of non-violent forms of harassment.

biccat wrote:
AIDS is a predominantly gay disease, and if you're going to insist on spending government money on the issue, gay communities should be informed that their way of life (particularly as to promiscuity and safe sex) is dangerous.

Well, really only as to promiscuity and safe sex, though more the latter than the former. There's also historical issues arising from negative social pressure that have created a higher than average rate of HIV infected homosexual and bisexual men. Then there's matter of poverty to consider, as the rate of HIV infection is much higher amongst relatively poor MSM than amongst relatively wealthy MSM.

biccat wrote:Slavery's been around for as long as one creature realized it could dominate another. But if you want to take the position that slavery is morally acceptable, I have no problem with that.

Okay, so if someone took your family and enslaved them, forcing parents and children and siblingsd and nephews to work in a coal mine (or worse, as prostitutes), you'd say that's not morally wrong?

dogma wrote:Well, really only as to promiscuity and safe sex, though more the latter than the former. There's also historical issues arising from negative social pressure that have created a higher than average rate of HIV infected homosexual and bisexual men. Then there's matter of poverty to consider, as the rate of HIV infection is much higher amongst relatively poor MSM than amongst relatively wealthy MSM.

A lot of current gay culture is focused on anonymous sex and promiscuity. There's even a subculture dedicated towards getting infected with HIV. There is a limited amount of resources we can dedicate to providing education and information about HIV, it should be put to where it will do the most good.

My personal opinion is that problems arise because men in general are idiots and having two men in a relationship is simply a recipe for disaster.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:Slavery's been around for as long as one creature realized it could dominate another. But if you want to take the position that slavery is morally acceptable, I have no problem with that.

Okay, so if someone took your family and enslaved them, forcing parents and children and siblingsd and nephews to work in a coal mine (or worse, as prostitutes), you'd say that's not morally wrong?

I would say it's morally wrong. But I think others could hold the position that it isn't morally wrong. And more imporantly, I don't think there should be any punishment for such a belief. It's when you act on those beliefs that there is a problem.

Then wouldn't you try to stop them from thinking that, to prevent them from trying to kidnap your family?

Monster Rain wrote:I find this to be a refreshing change of pace.

It is the 7up of threads. AHHHHHHH, refreshing.