Discharged for being gay, veterans face problems in re-enlisting

• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;935132 wrote:No they can petition their school district to change its policy. If not they can pursue it further at the state level. Or just change schools. Most school districts in Ohio have open enrollment. If not move. In your world only the gay kid is shit out of luck. The straight kid who thinks that homosexuality is unnatural or wrong and has to sit in class and hear how it is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. Or grade school kids that are subject to this homosexual stuff. Are they shit out of luck too?
  
  The left talks about intolerance. They can't tolerate any different belief other than their own on these issues. From what you say you fit into lefts mindset on these types of issues. People like me are far more tolerant. I may not agree with what you do in you locality or state concerning these issues but I can accept differences.

  I won't accept a difference if it involves teaching that a certain group of people are immoral or wrong.
  
  Now if your argument is that you'd just rather the topic not be addressed then I could abide that.
  
  As far as the sex practices go I meant like, how fucking works, not how to do weird kinky shit. I'd agree with you on that whole thing. Kids have the internet to learn all the filthy things to do to one another.
  
  You're tolerance thing reminded me of an image I saw though, it's not directly related but reminded me of it. Forget what the picture was but it said "Burn atheists at the stake for centuries...complain about atheists being intolerant of Christian worldview". Made me laugh a bit. Hopefully you can see the loose connection that reminded me and I'm not just going nuts.
• queencitybuckeye

  Glory Days;934590 wrote:except when it comes to reproduction

  So to be consistent, people beyond their child-bearing years should not be allowed to marry, correct?
• Glory Days

  

  queencitybuckeye;935214 wrote:So to be consistent, people beyond their child-bearing years should not be allowed to marry, correct?

  just because they cant reproduce, doesnt mean they dont have the urge to.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;935170 wrote:I won't accept a difference if it involves teaching that a certain group of people are immoral or wrong.

  I do. Skinheads.
  
  In all seriousness, it is completely your prerogative what kind of teaching you do and don't like. It is someone else's to disagree with you.
  
  For what it's worth what you mentioned above is not how I've heard anyone seriously discuss this topic, so I suppose I would agree that saying a "group of people" is wrong, but I'm far less at odds with a person who says that the people are fine, but a particular action is wrong.
  
  Either way, I'm with you that less should be said on the subject. Essentially, I'd be fully on board with, "Whatever you believe, everyone should play nicely in the sandbox."
  

  I Wear Pants;935170 wrote:As far as the sex practices go I meant like, how fucking works, not how to do weird kinky shit. I'd agree with you on that whole thing. Kids have the internet to learn all the filthy things to do to one another.

  Or walking in on their parents. Who would rob children of that horror?
  

  I Wear Pants;935170 wrote: You're tolerance thing reminded me of an image I saw though, it's not directly related but reminded me of it. Forget what the picture was but it said "Burn atheists at the stake for centuries...complain about atheists being intolerant of Christian worldview". Made me laugh a bit. Hopefully you can see the loose connection that reminded me and I'm not just going nuts.

  It's very loose, as most Christians would admit that burning at the stake was a terrible act. In fact, many of the early Protestants saw the same fate from the Roman Church.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;935352 wrote:Either way, I'm with you that less should be said on the subject. Essentially, I'd be fully on board with, "Whatever you believe, everyone should play nicely in the sandbox."

  Agreed. While I may disagree with homosexuality, I'm perfectly OK with allowing consenting adults to do whatever they choose provided it doesn't harm me or anyone else in the process. I'm simply opposed to the drive to give homosexuals "protected group" status (IE: hiring, hate crimes bullshit, etc.). They are no different than me except for personal sexual preference.
• cruiser_96

  

  'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
  All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  cruiser_96;935698 wrote:'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
  All mimsy were the borogoves,
  And the mome raths outgrabe.

  you have a dick in your mouth or something?
• bigdaddy2003

  

  Did you guys see the mother who had her 8 year old son tell Michelle Bachmann that his mom was gay and that she didn't need to be fixed?
• I Wear Pants

  Or the girl that asked Bachmann how she would protect the rights of gay people. Bachmann said that gays have the right to marry just like straight people...as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. She kept mentioning the law of the land and such completely oblivious to the fact that part of the job of the president is to sometimes change the law of the land when it is unjust like in this case.
• dwccrew

  

  I Wear Pants;1010060 wrote:Or the girl that asked Bachmann how she would protect the rights of gay people. Bachmann said that gays have the right to marry just like straight people...as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. She kept mentioning the law of the land and such completely oblivious to the fact that part of the job of the president is to sometimes change the law of the land when it is unjust like in this case.

  Isn't that Congress' job? And for the Supreme Court to determine? I don't think the president really has much power in terms of changing the law. He can certainly push for it and sign it into law after Congress drafts and approves it though.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1010060 wrote:... completely oblivious to the fact that part of the job of the president is to sometimes change the law of the land when it is unjust like in this case.

  Huh?
  When did that happen?
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1010060 wrote:Or the girl that asked Bachmann how she would protect the rights of gay people. Bachmann said that gays have the right to marry just like straight people...as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. She kept mentioning the law of the land and such completely oblivious to the fact that part of the job of the president is to sometimes change the law of the land when it is unjust like in this case.

  Fail...MAJOR FAIL.
  
  Last I checked it was the legislative branch's job to change laws, not the chief executive.
  
  But hey, maybe there was an amendment to the Constitution passed since I took government in high school and college?
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;1010060 wrote:She kept mentioning the law of the land and such completely oblivious to the fact that part of the job of the president is to sometimes change the law of the land when it is unjust like in this case.

  Apparently Bachmann and you have something in common. That, of course, being oblivious to the facts.
• isadore

  1964 Civil Rights Law ending de jure segregation was sent to Congress by John Kennedy then the fight for its passage was lead by first JFK then LBJ. Voting Rights Act of 1965 sent to Congress and fight for its approval lead by LBJ. In each case these protections of basic rights were pushed through Congress by the President. The President should follow that model. He has a start with pushing through the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and having the Justice Department stop defending the DOMA.
  Those that were removed by the enforcement of an unjust rule and who now what to return, should be restored to their previous positions if they are physically and mentally able.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1010652 wrote:Fail...MAJOR FAIL.
  
  Last I checked it was the legislative branch's job to change laws, not the chief executive.
  
  But hey, maybe there was an amendment to the Constitution passed since I took government in high school and college?

  God damn it people. I should have said "advocating for changing laws". Should have known you bastards would have taken that a way I didn't mean (though I made it easy for you this time). Of course the president doesn't actually change the law. Fuck.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  O-Trap;934394 wrote:Bible never said anything about prohibiting gay people in the military, getting legally married, adopting children, showing affection in public, or anything else of the sort.
  
  In America, you are responsible for yourself and your own moral life. You are not responsible for regulating someone else's through legislation.

  bible states homosexuality is a sin. People believe whatever the bible tells them. I see a correlation. OMGZ, a book written thousands of years ago said this so we are going to believe it!
• Skyhook79

  

  I Wear Pants;1011168 wrote:God damn it people. I should have said "advocating for changing laws". Should have known you bastards would have taken that a way I didn't mean (though I made it easy for you this time). Of course the president doesn't actually change the law. Fuck.

  I would think a Harvard man would be able to communicate better.
• Skyhook79

  

  DeyDurkie5;935122 wrote: lawls? seriously?

  Are you really complaining about someone's spelling? Seriously?
• Skyhook79

  

  Writerbuckeye;886520 wrote: It leads to nowhere and it's not the type of Christianity to which I subscribe.

  Which type do you subscribe to?
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Skyhook79;1017905 wrote:Are you really complaining about someone's spelling? Seriously?

  I was actually complaining about the retardedness of that word. once again you fail, thanks for playing.
  
  cue bible verse response
• Skyhook79

  

  DeyDurkie5;1017907 wrote:I was actually complaining about the retardedness of that word. once again you fail, thanks for playing.
  
  cue bible verse response

  It doesn't seem any more "retardedness" than rpobably or domianted.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Skyhook79;1017910 wrote:It doesn't seem any more "retardedness" than rpobably or domianted.

  ah, spelling correction.
  
  You've got nothing, thank's for playing though.
• like_that

  

  Skyhook79;1017910 wrote:I have nothing again!

  We know.
• Fred Flintstone

  DeyDurkie5;1017896 wrote:bible states homosexuality is a sin. People believe whatever the bible tells them. I see a correlation. OMGZ, a book written thousands of years ago said this so we are going to believe it!

  The Bible also prohibits eating shellfish, wearing gold, divorce, wearing clothes made out of two types of materials, tattoos, pulling out, and rounded hair cuts. SMH.
• Skyhook79

  

  Fred Flintstone;1017954 wrote:The Bible also prohibits eating shellfish, wearing gold, divorce, wearing clothes made out of two types of materials, tattoos, pulling out, and rounded hair cuts. SMH.

  The Bible doesn't prohibit anything.