INFO-If my kids are being raised by teachers, cops, coaches and other kids than I would be a failure as a parent. If you would subject your kids to being raised by people you don't even know then I would suggest that your kids may turn out a bit strange.

There are:

"We do not have equal opportunity."

Lies!

"White collar people are 99% white."

Damned lies!

"Minority people are the largest serving in prison (especially for non violent drug offenses) and the largest group on death row."

And Statistics!

"Marijuana and alcohol are both mood altering drugs. Marijuana never killed a soul and comes from a natural plant. Alcohol is made by a process and kills 1000s and 1000s of people yearly. Yet, one is legal and the other is not? Anyone ever ask why? Could it be that one is a rich man's drug while the other is not?"

You must be tripping on something Info. Never killed a soul? MJ has killed thousands and turned thousands more into zombies. Why do you think they call it Driving Under the Influence (DUI)?

The rich man's drug?
bottle of MD20/20 $ 1.20
marijuana - ounce $20.00
Yeh right!

"It takes a family? So I guess your kids never leave the house daily? They don't interact, learn, become influenced by others? They don't talk to teachers, counselors, cops, peers, coaches? You must have some weird kids."

I'll also respond to this without the personal, snide comments. Values start in the home with the family. Children then test those values in the world as they start to interact with their environment. Don't think a father is important? Over 80% of the people in prison did not have the influence of a father in the home. Again we come down to personal responsibility for yourself and your children.

INFO-There are more minorities on death row but white people are executed more often then their minority counterparts--we've been over this before.

What does alchohol being made through a process have to do with it being legal? Perhaps it's legal because it has been in use for many thousands of years and therefore has become an accepted part of nearly every culture on earth?

If marijuana is the drug of the poor perhaps it's because it makes you fat and lazy-which makes it a perfect choice!

Info,

"Lastly, your concept of liberalism is extremely narrow. Being a liberal means so many things and hits on so many issues. To assume that views on personal responsibility are the only thing that separates liberals from conservatives makes you extremely ignorant."

Info, come now, I used only one example of the diffs between libs and conservs. Don't make the assumption of someone's ignorance based on a single example.

"If you do not hurt anyone, then right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder"

That is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Libs as a matter of doctrine don't believe in absolutes, which states what is wrong or right regardless of the circumstances. And without getting into a religous arguement, we do know what God expects from us, it's called the Bible and a little thing called the ten commandments. Granted there are minor variations on the interpretation of the Bible, but as a whole, the belief systems are the same. And before you bring up the other "non-christian" religons, they also believe in a system of absolute values. Which, coincidentally, for some strange reason they (the other religons) tend to have the same system of values as the Bible. It's an easy way of life to not hold yourself or others to a set standard of behavior, not everyone choose's the easy way out. And I am curious also, how can you be against the death penalty and for "pro choice". As a matter of fact I'm pro choice also, the woman has the right to choose to have sex or not. It goes back to personal responsibility for your actions.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> And without getting into a religious argument, we do know what God expects from us, it's called the Bible and a little thing called the ten commandments. Granted there are minor variations on the interpretation of the Bible, but as a whole, the belief systems are the same. And before you bring up the other "non-christian" religions, they also believe in a system of absolute values. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Damn those atheist!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> As a matter of fact I'm pro choice also, the woman has the right to choose to have sex or not. It goes back to personal responsibility for your actions. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As a society, we pick and choose what we hold ourselves accountable for. We have the power to allow people to correct some of the mistakes they make. Its called second chances. No reason to make people and the children pay with their lives to prove a point.

Conservatives love to condemn others for being human and claim its about values. Who's values? Yours? What about mine? I thought this was the land of the free, not the land of the Christians. Finally, the religious side to conservatism is coming out, AH HA!

ebbertt,
In the constitution, it also says we have freedom of speech. I don't quite understand why I would get arrested if I yell fire in a crowded theater <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

You claim it says we have a right to bare arms?

Damn, I live in NYC, its not only in one of the 50 states, but its also in one of the first 13 colonies. I wonder why I can't purchase and carry a gun here <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

So yea, the basic rights of everyone is in the constitution? I wonder if there are any contradictions in real life as there are in the first 2 I mentioned.

My point: Nothing is black and white

This is much better, I like the quicker pace.

Now, INFO, I know you like to braod brush conservatives-but so far I'm the only person on this thread who has come out and said "I'm a conservative." Everyone else seems to hold many of my points of view but they don't want to label themselves. Anyway, how about when you say things like "Conservatives love to condemn others for being human and claim its about values" you actually give some example of me or some other conservative actually doing this. It would really help in your debating!

I've been wanting to ask you (INFO) about what you think of reparations being paid to African-Americans?

Also, are you an atheist? I'm not going to debate that with you I'm just curious.

Flame- You're showing your age with your "$20 for an ounce of MJ"!! If you can grab it for that you'd better start selling it and be a rich man in a few hours!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by InfoSeeker:
<strong>ebbertt,
In the constitution, it also says we have freedom of speech. I don't quite understand why I would get arrested if I yell fire in a crowded theater <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

You claim it says we have a right to bare arms?

Damn, I live in NYC, its not only in one of the 50 states, but its also in one of the first 13 colonies. I wonder why I can't purchase and carry a gun here <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

So yea, the basic rights of everyone is there? I wonder if there are any flaws in that amendment as there are in the first 2 I mentioned.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">None of what you just said has ANYTHING to do with my posts today. NOTHING. Seriously, what were you thinking when you typed this?

Those are part of the Constitution my friend. They are not constitutional laws, they are part of it.

Marty, I believe I've said numerous times I'm a conservative Republican, so don't insult me like that again. LOL <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> (joke)

Matt

Marty,
I'm against reparations for African Americans. The unfortunite ones who suffered are dead. Giving their decendants money only serves a greedy function and many today are just trying to capitalize. Plus, reparations go backward. I like to go forward. I also am one who believes that money does not fix all our problems.

I'm not an athiest, I believe in creation. I just don't believe in the bible or any other man made religion for that matter. I'm also a relativist and do not let emotion cloud my judgement as to what is right or wrong. Some things are more right to more people while some are less right to more people. But in the end, right and wrong (morality) is in the eye of the beholder as there is no universe based morality for all, just maybe common beliefs (like killing is wrong for us as a species). I also believe that there's no angel sitting on each of our shoulders making sure we behaive so that we earn a ticket to heaven. That idiology only serves to control people into behaiving which is not necessarily a bad thing, but either way, it comes from a false premise that provides a false sense of comfort that only serves to helps the weak find themselves. I think of a God as greater and who cares more about the macro picture rather then the micro. But if religion helps some find their way, more power to them. So basically, to each his own, just don't force me.

Common conservative beliefs with religious bias's that I hate: antiabortion beliefs baised on religion, the 10 commandments in public schools, the death penalty (an eye for an eye - justified in the bible), government funding of religious institutions (usually Christian baised), judgment of other's personal lives (ex: sexual morality), and the arrogance of assuming you know the answers while everyone else is clueless.

Common liberal beliefs with anti-religious bias that I abhor: abortion beliefs based on my body - my choice (choice was made when engaging in sex); keeping religion out of government (our country was founded with religion in government but keeping government out of religion. Why else would we have "In God We Trust" on our money or "So Help Me God" in the military oath?); against the death penalty (clear inability to accept fact that some people are evil); discrimination against any religious based program especially if successful (while funding programs proven not to work); judgement of others personal lives (unless they are liberal and have good intentions); the arrogance of assuming that socialism is the answer to all our problems (when history has proven time and again that it doesn't work); and self centered, mindless chatter about open minds when their own are closed so tightly that the light from a nuclear blast couldn't seep through.

Thank God I live in a country where I have choice in my religion, occupation, living location, and the ability to affect my government as a citizen.

Coney,

Your right but it still makes the point that calling alcohol the rich man's drug and MJ the poor man's drug is idiotic.

Marty,

I said it before and I'll say it again; I am conservative in my beliefs too! Like y'all couldn't tell from my posts. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Info says: "My point: Nothing is black and white"
Also says: ""White collar people are 99% white."

Seems like a lot of white to me! LOL <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Info,

Round and round we go, you've got a knack, much like my wife, to take what people say and twist it ever so slightly. Example:

"...Its called second chances. No reason to make people and the children pay with their lives to prove a point."

I'm not going to get into an abortion debate with you but you just contradicted yourself here. The children DO pay with their lives when a woman decides to kill her child because it's inconvienent for her. I'm all for second chances, that doesn't mean you don't accept the responsibility and consequences for your actions. And it's not about "proving a point" it's about protecting the innocent life of that child.

"Conservatives love to condemn others for being human and claim its about values."

I don't think anyone here expects anybody else to not make mistakes, you're right that's part of being human. However, when I or anybody else have a (for the ease of arguement I'll only mention legal lapse) legal lapse of judgement, I should be punished based on our system of legal values. It's not about condemnation, it's about saying "I messed up, and it's time to pay the piper" It takes courage to be able to accept that, not everyone is willing to do it.
You mention the religous side of conservatism like that's a bad thing. Is it?

"...Who's values? Yours? What about mine? I thought this was the land of the free, not the land of the Christians."

This IS the land of the free, and not the land of the christians. That's the problem, everyone wants to live by their own set of values, it's easier that way. Absolutes are necessary to maintain any kind of order in any civilization. Example:
You have a pink flamingo in your yard and I hate those things. I also think no one should have those displayed in their yard because their ugly and will make MY property value go down. So I decide to take it out of your yard and burn it.
Your value system says it's alright to have it displayed, mine says it's not. So we're both right, right?

Apologies to Flame and ebbert, my fellow conservatives!

Flame,
Abortion beliefs based on my body? Exactly, its my body, your body, their body. I'll be damned if anyone tried to tel me what to do with mine.

Our country was founded with religion in government but keeping government out of religion? I guess there's another meaning to separation of church and state huh? To me it sounds like it applies both ways.

Why do you have "in god we trust" and "so help me god?" Those phrases do not advocate religion. They advocate a believe in a higher power. Religion is a human institution that is spawned by successful groups who assume they know how and why God creates.

Socialism, the answer to all our problems? I've ever supported socialism?

Alcohol is not a rich man's drug? MJ is not a poor man's drug? Gee, I didn't know we had all these white collar folks smoking, gettin high, and doing time. Maybe you should take a look at the world around you more often and see who uses what more. But somehow I think you know this. Being hardheaded maybe <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

funkyfly,
Your not going to get into the abortion debate? You just did! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> I guess that is where you and me differ. I see the line drawn at birth. Even if it was truly a life, I don't believe we (the government) have the power to enter anyone's body. So basically, its not ours for the protecting.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> You have a pink flamingo in your yard and I hate those things. I also think no one should have those displayed in their yard because their ugly and will make MY property value go down. So I decide to take it out of your yard and burn it.
Your value system says it's alright to have it displayed, mine says it's not. So we're both right, right? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Last I checked, your values sound a bit like communism to me

Info,

That was an example of two people having different value systems and the NEED to have an across the board standard for everyone. If someone doesn't like the current system, they're more than welcome to bitch, complain or even leave, but they still need to follow them.

Info,

"Abortion beliefs based on my body? Exactly, its my body, your body, their body. I'll be damned if anyone tried to tel me what to do with mine."

My biggest "non-religious" problem with abortion is the use of government funding. Why should I have to pay for another person's choice?

"Our country was founded with religion in government but keeping government out of religion? I guess there's another meaning to separation of church and state huh? To me it sounds like it applies both ways."

Nice try to side step the issue! If the facts don't fit your ideas then change the definition so they do fit.

"Why do you have "in god we trust" and "so help me god?" Those phrases do not advocate religion. They advocate a believe in a higher power. Religion is a human institution that is spawned by successful groups who assume they know how and why God creates."

Ah, another side step using "ad hominen". Hard to say religion doesn't play a part so you try to change the intent again.

"Socialism, the answer to all our problems? I've ever supported socialism?"

You supported it loudly earlier in this discussion. Guess your relativism is at work here. It isn't relevant to view at this time so you now don't support it.

"Alcohol is not a rich man's drug? MJ is not a poor man's drug? Gee, I didn't know we had all these white collar folks smoking, gettin high, and doing time. Maybe you should take a look at the world around you more often and see who uses what more. But somehow I think you know this. Being hardheaded maybe"

I have looked around the whole world except Australia/New Zealand. Your statement is still idiocy. If you claimed that the rich man legalized alcohol so he could keep the poor man drunk on cheap booze then it would have the appearance of making some sense. Saying that the poor man uses drugs thereby being put in jail by the rich man while there is a much cheaper alternative is just pure idiocy.

"Even if it was truly a life, I don't believe we (the government) have the power to enter anyone's body. So basically, its not ours for the protecting."

So basically we shouldn't pay for it either. Since it is her body, it is her problem and cost. I have no problem with paying if the mother's life is in danger but elective surgery is not the governments responsibility!

INFO-A real world FYI for you--the two states with the highest mandatory minimum wage are the same two states with the highest rate of unemployment--coincidence??

I think not.

Another question for you (not a debate remember), you say "I just don't believe in the bible or any other man made religion for that matter. "

Whether you believe in what the Bible says or not it does exist as a matter of historical fact. Are you saying that all the things in the Bible are fictional? Just curious.

funkyfly,
I think if the value system being forced upon you was something you didn't like or agree with, you might start talking like me.

Flame,
<<<Ah, another side step using "ad hominen". Hard to say religion doesn't play a part so you try to change the intent again.>>>

God is religion? What religion does it belong to? When you come up with that answer, I'd love to know.

<<<You supported it loudly earlier in this discussion. Guess your relativism is at work here. It isn't relevant to view at this time so you now don't support it.>>>

I might support micro aspects of any one side, but I will never support all beliefs. I'm not a follower of any group. I think freely, form my own opinions, and stray away from uniform thought.

<<<Saying that the poor man uses drugs thereby being put in jail by the rich man while there is a much cheaper alternative is just pure idiocy.>>>

Ok, so you tell me why blacks and minorities rather smoke MJ when alcohol is legal? If you say they don't (idiotic), then I ask you, who is the largest portion of the population locked up for it?

I'm assuming you live in some farm or in some remote suburb because of your ignorant statements. Try going to a major city and see who smokes all the MJ and who gets locked up for it.

Marty,
No, I believe the bible to be a fairly accurate historical document, although there is solid evidence that some prophecies where presented after the events occured and written to lead us to believe that the predictions occured sometimes 100s of years before the events ever took place. Which destroys some of the time lines within the book. So I guess it all depends on the credibility of each of the 40 authors. But that's another debate. Either way, I believe the book was written by the flawed hands of man, not God.

Info,

"God is religion? What religion does it belong to? When you come up with that answer, I'd love to know."

Very good use again of ad hominen. You still haven't addressed the main point of the discussion. While a specific religion is not addressed, it was/is a part of this country and it's founding. Nice try to side step again!

"I might support micro aspects of any one side, but I will never support all beliefs. I'm not a follower of any group. I think freely, form my own opinions, and stray away from uniform thought. "

It is amazing how all your thoughts and opinions are virtually identical to the liberal ideas and the Dems whom you unwaveringly support. Which support is based on their intentions not their actions.

"Ok, so you tell me why blacks and minorities rather smoke MJ when alcohol is legal? If you say they don't (idiotic), then I ask you, who is the largest portion of the population locked up for it?"

There are many reasons that all people use illegal substances. The point is that it is illegal and there is a consequence to any illegal action. They are freely choosing to use the substance therefor they are responsible for their action. I couldn't give a rats a$$ who they are, what their background is, where they come from, when they used it, etc. We are a nation that believes in the "rule of law" so we abide by them. There are many laws that I don't agree with or like but I still abide by them while using the system to try and institute changes. This is a right that all Americans have, regrettably to many people do not exercise this right.

"I'm assuming you live in some farm or in some remote suburb because of your ignorant statements. Try going to a major city and see who smokes all the MJ and who gets locked up for it."

First, you shouldn't assume. Second, calling my statements ignorant because I disagree with you is pitiful. Third, I was a high school drop-out from the poor area of a city and lived in the very conditions you try to use as an excuse for the lack of personal responsibility in those you defend.

I have lived and worked in many cities; Albuquerque, Houston, and Frankfurt to name a few. I have also lived and worked in smaller towns; Grand Forks, Abilene, Kunsan to name a few also.

Again, you fail to look at the main point which is using illegal substances is "ILLEGAL"! If you use then you lose. As a matter of fact, your assertion that we look at who uses and gets locked up only points more to the idiocy of your statements. If they didn't use then they wouldn't be locked up would they?

Info,

At the risk of sounding insulting, I hope I wouldn't start talking like you. And as a matter of fact there ARE laws I don't agree with. That doesn't change the fact that absolutes are necessary. It is impossible to make policies or laws that everyone will agree with, that's what makes this country so great. We are free to form our own opinions and act on them, as long as they are legal, without repurcusions from governmental agencies. So whether you agree or not it doesn't matter, you still have to follow the law of the land. If this country is so bad, then leave. I'm thinking this will probably be your first trip out of the country. And then start talking about how bad this place is after you have actually SEEN other places. Maybe you'll stop baseing your opinion's on what you READ in the paper or on the net, which is biased by the author one way or the other. Then you may have a legitimate claim to "forming your own ideas, and not conforming to uniform thought." From where I'm sitting it seems to me you have VERY uniform thought. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're probably about 22 or so, working your way through college. I'm not bashing your thought processes, but it sounds like you need a more complete understanding of the world, as seen through your OWN eyes. Knowing history and UNDERSTANDING history are two completely different things.

Flame/funkyfly,
<<<There are many reasons that all people use illegal substances. The point is that it is illegal and there is a consequence to any illegal action.>>>

If we were debating whether MJ is illegal, then you'd be right hands down as it is illegal. But the point I'm trying to make is whether it "SHOULD" be illegal. And if it should be illegal, then why. Why should it be held to a different standard from alcohol and even cigarettes for that matter? Fact is, there are no reasons. They are all in the same standard of mood altering drugs which in large quantities can cause harmful affects. So politicians (and the people they represent) have hidden motivations they use to exploit specific groups of people (minorities). Which is why so many minorities are in prison on non-violent drug offenses today and can hardly ever get ahead later on in life.

Flame,
<<<First, you shouldn't assume. Second, calling my statements ignorant because I disagree with you is pitiful.>>>

First, You and others have assumed many things about me So I guess I was up for a freebe on assumptions <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> . Second, you have called my statements ignorant on many occasions. So I guess your statements are pitiful too huh?

But anyway, lets keep this civil as we should be looking at this as an educational and fun debate.

Funkyfly,
You assumed wrong about my age and status. Just so you know <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Info,

"First, You and others have assumed many things about me So I guess I was up for a freebe on assumptions"

I have made no assumptions about you. I have pointed out that your writing and statements are very liberal, your statements whoelheartedly support the Democrats, and your statements disparage the conservatives. This is your writing and no assumption was made about you. I did expect that your profile stating that you are from NYC was correct therefor you have first hand knowledge of this large city. You know what they say when you assume?

"Second, you have called my statements ignorant on many occasions. So I guess your statements are pitiful too huh?"

Merriam-Webster definitions below:

idiotic: showing complete lack of thought or common sense.

ignorant: destitute of knowledge or education; resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence.

I have called your statements "idiotic" meaning there is no common sense or logic to them. You have called mine ignorant meaning lack of knowledge/education/intelligence. There is quite a difference between the two words. I question your thought process and the manner that you use to arrive at your conclusions, I did not question your knowledge, education or intelligence.

Think of this as educational to a writer/journalist in the use of the English language.

Info,

No disrespect intended if you're offended at all by what I've said. Tact is not a strong suit of mine, I almost pride myself on not "pulling punches" if I've got something to say. So don't take anything personally, cause I don't mean it personally. It's kind of fun to mix it up a little with someone I disagree with on almost every point imaginable. Just to stir the pot a little more, what do you think about homosexuality in the military.

So I'm not the only one who can't think of a better word than idiotic! Good to know!

INFO-thanks for the answers to my religion questions. I kept my promise!

Marty, I would ask you the same questions but with your conservative nature, I sense your a practicing Christian <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

funkyfly
Don't worry, I wasn't offended. As for your question, I have nothing against gays in the service. I only have something against those who act on their sexuality when inappropriate. But overall, sexual preference does not affect job performance. Point: Gays are part of the civilian workforce and I never saw a statistic that showed them perform poorly in their jobs so I see no different with military jobs. As far as their decisions and desires sexually, its disgusting but hey, to each his own. I don't care to know it, and if I happen to find out, I like to forget it as fast as I learned it and then go on with my own business.

As far as openly gay soldiers in all male combat units, I have a mixed view on that. What are your thoughts?

Info,

You brought up the point that gays work in the civilian work force without any stat to show that their work is under par. That is where civs and the military differ. The military depends on the unit as a WHOLE to perform well, individual performance has less, for lack of a better word, value than in the civilian world. The problem with gays in the military, especially in an all male outfit, is that they negatively affect that unit's cohesion. From this point of view it is irrelevant whether homosexuality is considered moral or not. It's a matter of their very prescence disrupting the only organization that protect's this nation from invasion, attack etc. Maybe if this country becomes corrupted enough to accept homosexuality as the norm <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> , then maybe their prescence in the military won't have such a negative effect. But its not worth the price that will be paid in the military's effectiveness to formally accept gays in the military just to placate the vocal few who have little or no understanding of what the military is or what it's job is.

I don't think production/performance is the best reason gays should not be allowed in our military.

The civs and the military differ in the sense that in the military you have to live with these people. Often times the office isn't left at the office b/c you sleep, eat, etc with your co-workers. This is problematic when there is sexual tension.

To argue that gays should be in the military would mean that you should also argue that there should be no sex difference in the military. <<The argument that sexual tension is not problematic.>> Meaning co-ed dorms, bunks, bathrooms, showers, etc. Do you think this would work? What's the difference?

INFO-Now why would you frown on me if I was a practicing Christian? WOuld it make you feel better if I was a Buddhist or of the Islamic faith??

As for gays in the military just remember that the Armed Forces are NOT equal opportunity employers.

well said Brock! I concur completely. Just as it would make many uncomfortable to shower and sleep with members of the opposite sex other than thier spouse, the presence of homosexuals brings about the same problem. Tension will arise if you know that someone you are in vulnerable situations with day in and day out (sleeping, showering, etc.) is looking at you in a sexual way.

Is being politically correct more important than the welfare of our troops? Unfortunately, many today believe that it is. All this talk of so-called "fairness and equality" is destroying the foundation of this nation. We have an entire generation now that is engrained with this "entitlement" mentality. " The world owes me because......"

The truth is if you want something, strive for it. If you fail, try again. But don't demand that the standard be changed simply because it is difficult to achieve. Standards are there for a reason. If you cannot achieve the standards, for whatever reason, it is better that you not be in that field, for you and the field. Lowering standards cheapens not only your value once you achieve your goal, but also nullifies the quality of the field, rendering it ineffective.

Of course this is only the opinion of yet, another " narrow-minded, right-wing, Christian, conservative". hehe

Brock,

I agree with you, you spelled out more clearly what I was trying to say. I'll play devil's advocate then and pose this question. Since the military is already split between the sexes as in sperarate dorms, showers, bathrooms etc. Why not just give the gays their own separate living facilities as we do with male and female?

I think I saw a skit where the show "In Living Color" did just that. It wasn't a pretty site, but they did have nice curtains, and uniforms.

My question is wouldn't there be the same "sexual tension"? Again, in an all women's dorm they are not all after each other (like it would be in your example). I guess, the only way to alleviate it would be to put one gay guy in each women's dorm. If that is the case...I'll come out of the closet too....as long as I don't have to prove it!

Well then how about an all gay submarine crew or better yet an all gay Pararethscue Team!

I think they already have an all gay submarine crew...or maybe just mostly gay! Ever heard the joke about why the Navy has their names on the back of their pants?

Hopefully we can joke about this one.

Interesting points. As for all male combat units, I do believe it can pose a problem. However, are members of non combat units (normal mos/afsc) really that close to each other in day to day life? Do they share showers at the same time, sleep on the same bed, etc? Because as far as the actual jobs, men and women work together and it works. Is there tension? Maybe, but it still works.

<<<It's a matter of their very prescence disrupting the only organization that protect's this nation from invasion, attack etc.>>>

Who will be disrupting it, the gays, or the straights not accepting the gays? Seems to me like its about punishing the gays to satisfy the discomforts of the spoiled straights. What's next for these poor straight souls who just can't work with a gay person? Maybe one day they'll have an itch and won't be able to funtion around black people? Hey, who knows, if they demand them gone and it doesn't happen, it can disrupt the organization as well no? See my point? In the end, you have values. And the value to accept people with all of their faults is golden and something that wise NCOs can instill in young recruits. If your people do not accept it, then you fix the people, you don't tailor to their needs.

<<<Maybe if this country becomes corrupted enough to accept homosexuality as the norm , then maybe their prescence in the military won't have such a negative effect.>>>

Why is it corrupt to accept it? What's wrong with a "to each his own" mentality? I actually thought that was the way of the warrior. Strong fearless men of few words, deep inner peace, serenity, no judgment. Damn, I been watching too much star wars. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> But hey, who knows, maybe it was part of God's master plan to include homosexuality. There are gay animals in nature as well. And with gay men and women walking the earth, there are less babies to be born, as this planet is extremely over populated. Its a thought

whutnot,
<<<Just as it would make many uncomfortable to shower and sleep with members of the opposite sex...>>>

You would actually be uncomfortable showering with the opposite sex??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

Info,

Now you've done it, you've moved this into a debate on the virtues of homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong, period. We are made in two different sexes, male and female. I don't buy the THEORY that people are born gay. I think there are probably alot of factors that go into making someone desire their own sex, but genetics is not one of them.

"There are gay animals in nature as well"

Well some animals in nature eat their young also. Using ANIMALS to justify HUMAN behavior debases us all. Just because there is deviant behavior in nature doesn't justify it for humans.

"Seems to me like its about punishing the gays to satisfy the discomforts of the spoiled straights."

As I said in my earlier post, "But its not worth the price that will be paid in the military's effectiveness to formally accept gays in the military just to placate the vocal few who have little or no understanding of what the military is or what it's job is."

"Why is it corrupt to accept it? What's wrong with a "to each his own" mentality?"

Hey what someone does on their own time in their own bedroom, regardless of how reupulsive or degenerative it may be, is their business. It doesn't mean I condone it or accept it as okay. It goes back to that discussion on absolutes, it's an absolute that homosexuality is wrong. Don't burst into flame Info, I'm going to refer to the Bible. Remember the story in the Bible about the two towns of Sodom and Gomora? God destroyed them because of their wickedness. What do you think their wickedness was? Ever heard of the term Sodomy? Everyone knows you don't enter through exits only <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> Now from a biblical perspective that is pretty clear what God's view on homosexuality is. So to someone who follows the Bible's teachings, it is impossible to accept homosexuality as okay.
This reminds of that country song, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" I see this in mainly the liberal view, "everything is okay as long as it makes you happy and you're not hurting anyone." Unfortunately this is not the case, despite what people want to believe.

INFO-"If your people do not accept it, then you fix the people, you don't tailor to their needs."

So now why isn't that true of the former standards of our military. Gays weren't allowed to serve, they didn't accept it and so it was tailored to their needs. Why didn't someone fix them?

Info said:
<<<<<whutnot,
<<<Just as it would make many uncomfortable to shower and sleep with members of the opposite sex...>>>

You would actually be uncomfortable showering with the opposite sex??? >>>>>>

If you're gonna quote me, use the entire quote. I said members of the opposite sex "other than thier spouse". Belive it or not, there do still exist some of us who hold highly a biblical moral standard. Though this is completely contradictory to the liberal "If it feels good, do it" mentality, Some of us believe in the virtue of giving yourself only to your spouse.

Calm down whutnot. I was attempting to make a joke. I know what you meant. Geez, you can cut the tention with a chain saw

funkyfly,
Is homosexuality wrong? Well, I don't like to use right or wrong in a universal sense because I'm a relativist, however I do believe it can be a flaw in human nature. So yes, I believe your right, we are made in two different sexes for an obvious purpose, to bond and reproduce. But let me pose four points to you.

#1. Sexual preference is biological ... Why? I don't want to get too graphic but please bare with me while I try to explain. When we look at a beautiful woman, chemical reactions occur in our body; reactions that we cannot control similar to the way we cannot control our heartbeat. Now, if we try to look at a man the same way, inside, all we feel is disgust, and chemically, we do not activate the same way. A hairy man, deep voice, and muscles looks awful and extremely unattractive to straight men. So, all these mental and body reactions are not a choice we have. Its a blueprint to our sexuality given to us at birth. The chemical reactions (ex:blood rush) that spark attraction cannot occur by choice. They are independent from abstract thinking (choice).

A side point: It has been proven scientifically as they have discovered the brain chemical that creates homosexuality. I won't paste any links but if you do a search for credible scientific research on the subject (not religiously bias), I'm sure you will find it.

#2. Because homosexuality is biological, it is a flaw like many other flaws in human development. Like retardation, disorders, and like being handicap. There are norms for human development. And occasionally, humans develop flaws. Would you say its morally wrong to be retarded or to be handicap?

#3. We are animals, mammals to be more specific, as much as many of us try to think we are not. We eat, drink, ****, piss, sleep, hunt, fear, just like animals and we are also made of exactly the same stuff as other mammals (flesh and bone) with slight variations between the species (ex: some are smarter, some run faster, some are stronger, etc). We are also edible and part of the food chain as well. See if a lion won't capitalize if he sees your live carcus roaming around <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> But I'm sure religion doesn't allow you to see all this, as religion tells us that God made us apart from animals. I guess it is written that way so that humans can feel special and elite. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

#4. In the end, we have to accept flaws in human nature. Especially ones that are only visible to those who impose absolutes on the world. As if people can actually have the arrogance to know any universal absolutes.

Biggest factor I see in all this is that liberals ask questions while conservatives follow a uniform code, the bible. You don't ask questions, and if someone happens to ask you a question, you look for a page and a verse. Who's doing the free thinking here?

Info,

So the whole point of your ad hominen is to say that humans are no better than animals?

#1: Scientific research is only credible if the researcher is not religious?

#2: Let's stay with your theory about biological flaws. We are continually working with disorders and handicapping flaws to correct them. The same should be done with homosexuality. If it is a disorder then call it that and stop trying to say it is normal.

#3: If humans are no better than animals then why are you concerned about big business, conservatives, religion, fairness and equality? We are made apart from animals whether you accept the religious version or the natural version. Both show unequivocably that humans far exceed all animals. We are capable of reasoning and abstract thought, to name two differences, which are unique. And yes, humans are special and elite, we are at the top.

#4: In the end we don't accept the flaws in human nature, we look for ways to change them for the better.

I agree that liberals ask questions but they fail to accept the answers. They are consistent in their desire to repeat failed experiments in the hope that they will get a different answer.

I also agree that conservatives follow a uniform code but it is not just the bible. They learn from history and look for new innovative solutions to problems instead of repeating past mistakes.

So tell me, who's doing the free thinking? The people that base their work on failed experiments or the people that base their work on a solid foundation?

INFO,
If you don't mind, please find me that research.
It has been my understanding that top gay activist have tried to push research to find a biological reason for their choice of behavior. I have not heard of one, unbiased, piece of research on the matter that proves any biological cause for homosexuality.

To add to what Flame has said: If we do find a biological cause, do we try to fix it? After all, it would then be considered to be an illness. Shouldn't our society and medical community do what we can to eradicate illnesses?

Info,

Flame has already rebutted far more eloquently and clearly then I could on the points you brought up. I have only one question for you however. You brought up the point that we are biologically wired to respond to sexual stimuli, be it to a man or woman. Does that mean that pediphiles (sp), necrophiliacs, and people into bestiality are biologically wired for that as well? After all they have to go through the same chemical reactions as everyone else to perform those "tasks". There seems to be alot of rogue "brain chemicles" out there. One other point, earlier you expressed the "to each his own mentality" towards homosexuality. Now you're saying it's a defect and an illness, which is it. If I beleived someone was ill and acting inappropiately, I would want to remedy the problem.

I am somewhat conservative, but I have to say that it starts getting VERY dangerous to make value judgements about eradicating percieved "flaws," ESPECIALLY when those judgements are religiously rooted. I am not a relativist, but I also disagree with "fixing"people. Social engineering has some pretty gruesome end games when followed through (ie: remember the angry little german with the funny mustache?)
------------------------------------------------------------
Does homosexuality belong in the military? I don't think so because of the issues mentioned earlier. That said, civilian life is an entirely different matter.

Flame-- I have two questions.

1)If you had a son that was gay, would you bring him to a doctor to be "fixed?" Would you stop loving him?

2)If there wasn't a way to "fix" this hypothetical son, would you rather have him live life alone, or with someone he cared about...however distastefull it might be to you? Forget about the sex part; concerning the actual relationship aspect, would you want him to be alone for his whole life?

I bring up these 2 points because a cousin of mine is gay, and these were the questions that had to be addressed.

There's alot that can be debated about "fixing" people's "defects" completely outside of the discussion of relativism, but one thing at a time...

INFO-"A side point: It has been proven scientifically as they have discovered the brain chemical that creates homosexuality. I won't paste any links but if you do a search for credible scientific research on the subject (not religiously bias), I'm sure you will find it."

This is just a huge LIE. No one has discovered a brain chemical that causes homsexuality. Researchers can't even explain to you with any certainty how our brains work, let alone how all the neurotransmitters interact and what they do cause or don't cause. Not only have they not discovered a brain chemical that causes homosexuality, they can't even find a gene that may cause it and we know FAR more about human genes than we do about the human brain.

More and more I think INFO doesn't even believe half the crap he writes, he just writes it to elicit a response.

So tell me INFO if homosexuality is a product of evolution how is it that there are any homosexuals left, since they can't as a rule reproduce, if they are true to their human desires? After 10-20,000 years there should not be any more homosexual genes or "brain chemicals" left in the old gene pool.

I also love the fact that since you believe in some Oprah-ized version of God you're smarter than all of us who follow an instruction book for life.

EH-"Do gays belong in the military?"

Well I would guess that they have served in the military since it's inception. Many have offered distinguished service and been highly decorated. They can, and if they are drawn to the military, should serve. They should serve without anyone ever knowing their sexual preference.