Don't ask --Don't tell Will never work !!!

[klein]

Send a jacket to someone showing Canada as 2 words.......??? WTH?

Made in China, too - so basically, just getting shipped back to Asia ! LOL

 

[Lue C Fur]

I bet. Probably her only option if she want`s out of the pit in the cellar,right?

LMAO!!!! "Put the doggy in the baskett"...

 

[tieguy]

Hey dummnuts !

Do you know the american and canadian soldiers just handed out school supplies and toys to the Afghan kids ?
Oh yeah, right - they have been told to do so , right ?

I would think you're being denied access to those same kids an even better gift to them.

Do you know my mom and her sisters got a lot of food, gum, chocolate, etc from American Soldiers after WWII in Germany ?
That came from their hearts though - they felt sorry for those poor kids, everywhere.

And to thank those american soldiers you torment americans on american message boards. where is the justice?

Do you know we have phillipinos and other asians or middle easterners on this website (browncafe) earning only $1.50 per hr ?

sounds like more potential victims for your twisted play.

Maybe, don't be soo cheap and share some of your richness, like myself ?

Is that what you call your perversion? richness?

Here's an example - "darkangel" needed a jacket - no problem - she should get it any day now

what happen you run out of cheap plastic toys?

Left the addy readable, incase you may 1 day have a heart, and help others directly that are less fortunate.
Besides that, you are totally benefiting thru those low wages UPS pays overseas. Maybe time to give some of it, where it actually belongs - to those poor workers ! Or work colleges.

View attachment 4804

I think the problem as I see it may be that you just dont understand working people since you've never been one. I hope santa puts handcuffs in your stocking.

 

[cachsux]

Do you know we have phillipinos and other asians or middle easterners on this website (browncafe) earning only $1.50 per hr ?

$1.50 translates into 66 Philippine Peso` per hour. Average that out and in falls into the median income for someone in that profession. At least she has a job. Maybe she could make you a loan.

 

[wkmac]

I don't see it that way. Yea it maybe in some instances but not always by any means. Some people that object to homosexuality do so purely on a Biblical stance with nothing to do with their own sexuality. If one believes in what the Bible teaches, homosexuality is wrong, I have not found any passages that would contradict that statement...I stand to be corrected.
Playing the "homophobic" card is probably the second most used pigeon hole card.

For starters, the bible foundationally speaking is a man created, bronze age collection of oral traditions that began to be written down sometime after 500 BCE. Although it has many good things in it worth value, I don't subscribe to the belief that it is the literal "word of God" himself as they say. That's JMO, I'm likely in a very small minority on it so don't freak out that the end of the world is at hand either.

As to the prohibitions Leviticus 18:22, 23 and what is called homosexuality, this may not be the specific point made in the prohibition. The Assyrian, Egyptian and Canaanite people all had religious structures in which sexual acts were an important part. In the case of the Assyrians, their temple priests would often don female clothing and perform sexual acts playing the part of women as a means to achieve a higher connection with their Mother god Ishtar. Men would come to the temple and in effect, lay with the priest dressed in drag if you will as a means of religious connection and thus some form of blessing would result. Happy ending maybe? LOL!
In Egypt, there were religious rites where people would lay with animals such as goats and dogs while in one case men were known to lay with female crocodiles. And no, I've not even begun to think how that would work nor do I want too either. SNAP! The animals part is what is discussed in verse 23. But then if you read verse 21, it speaks of the Canaanite god Molech which maybe gets to the point. To further make that stronger, read verses 1-3 which open Leviticus 18.

1) The LORD said to Moses, 2) "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3) You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.

and verse 30 ends the chapter:

Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'"

The point is, the prohibition was against taking part in religious rites that violate the commandment of "no other gods before me" or "I am the Lord your God." If you solely focus on the purely sexual act itself and not understand the historical, custom and religious practice of the times and place, you'll completely miss the point entirely. And here's something else to look up which even surprised me a number of years ago. There are several passages that can be construed to mean men having sex with men is prohibited (Leviticus 18:22 for example is often cited) but find a similar direct prohibition against women having sex with each other. From what I can tell (and to my surprise numerous years ago), no such direct prohibition seems to exist although many take other passages to imply but none exist in the similar direct language that many suggest prohibit men. I find that rather interesting and puzzling to say the least when understood in light of a male prohibition.

Note the bible is a very paternal text to begin with so this may have to do with that but I just find it odd that what so many claim as a direct prohibition against men exclusively while no exclusive prohibition for women seem to exist.

After I read the history and learned the cultures that surrounded such practices, I can say I'm thankful I didn't live during those times as I still find all that stuff disgusting to begin with and especially if draped in religion. Leveticus 18 sounds a lot like Alabama to me when you read it and if you don't get the joke, just shows you're not from Georgia!

 

[trplnkl]

For starters, the bible foundationally speaking is a man created, bronze age collection of oral traditions that began to be written down sometime after 500 BCE. Although it has many good things in it worth value, I don't subscribe to the belief that it is the literal "word of God" himself as they say. That's JMO, I'm likely in a very small minority on it so don't freak out that the end of the world is at hand either.

As to the prohibitions Leviticus 18:22, 23 and what is called homosexuality, this may not be the specific point made in the prohibition. The Assyrian, Egyptian and Canaanite people all had religious structures in which sexual acts were an important part. In the case of the Assyrians, their temple priests would often don female clothing and perform sexual acts playing the part of women as a means to achieve a higher connection with their Mother god Ishtar. Men would come to the temple and in effect, lay with the priest dressed in drag if you will as a means of religious connection and thus some form of blessing would result. Happy ending maybe? LOL!
In Egypt, there were religious rites where people would lay with animals such as goats and dogs while in one case men were known to lay with female crocodiles. And no, I've not even begun to think how that would work nor do I want too either. SNAP! The animals part is what is discussed in verse 23. But then if you read verse 21, it speaks of the Canaanite god Molech which maybe gets to the point. To further make that stronger, read verses 1-3 which open Leviticus 18.



and verse 30 ends the chapter:


The point is, the prohibition was against taking part in religious rites that violate the commandment of "no other gods before me" or "I am the Lord your God." If you solely focus on the purely sexual act itself and not understand the historical, custom and religious practice of the times and place, you'll completely miss the point entirely. And here's something else to look up which even surprised me a number of years ago. There are several passages that can be construed to mean men having sex with men is prohibited (Leviticus 18:22 for example is often cited) but find a similar direct prohibition against women having sex with each other. From what I can tell (and to my surprise numerous years ago), no such direct prohibition seems to exist although many take other passages to imply but none exist in the similar direct language that many suggest prohibit men. I find that rather interesting and puzzling to say the least when understood in light of a male prohibition.

Note the bible is a very paternal text to begin with so this may have to do with that but I just find it odd that what so many claim as a direct prohibition against men exclusively while no exclusive prohibition for women seem to exist.

After I read the history and learned the cultures that surrounded such practices, I can say I'm thankful I didn't live during those times as I still find all that stuff disgusting to begin with and especially if draped in religion. Leveticus 18 sounds a lot like Alabama to me when you read it and if you don't get the joke, just shows you're not from Georgia!

You wasted a lot of time bringing up a debate on the validity of the Bible. I was not offering the Biblical position as proof of anything, My mentioning of the Bible was to point out why many people oppose homosexuality, justified/correct or not. It matters not if you or I believe what the Bible says, however it doesn't change what is there. My intention here is neither to promote nor to condem homosexuality , but to give my opinion on WHY there is so much importance placed on it in the military and in the American society. Remember, right or wrong, the majority of American's believe that our country was founded on Christianity.

 

[klein]

Remember, right or wrong, the majority of American's believe that our country was founded on Christianity.

Which when you think back in History, and the historic churches - it's still hard for me to believe that people were going to church, praying for health and prosperity, while having overworked, poor, slaves working thier lands or cleaning their homes. Or how they killed the natives off, or with 2 A Bombs destroyed so many innocent lives in seconds.
Mind you, same goes for the Europeans (mass killings, torture, etc).
Public hanging and other brutal executions. - Not to forget the Holocaust.

Not that you get me wrong - I'm for the death penality in some cases, but from a Christian point of view - it's totally wrong !
Man shall forgive......
And as many claim, as yourself - America is a Christian society - yet the only country in the western world that still has the death penalty.

America also is the only currency that I know of (probably some others around in the middle east), that have the word "God" on it - as in "God we trust"
Or uses "God bless America" in many political speeches.

Is that any much different then the slogan "God is Great" ?
How would you feel if later Afghanistan or Iraq prints the above slogan on their new currency or uses it in almost every politcal speech ?

If you ask me, John Lennon had it perfectly right, when he wrote the lyrics to "Imagine" !

 

[Babagounj]

God Bless America, a phrase that is seen on the government buildings in the nations capital and one that is sung as an anthem to stir the hearts and minds of the citizens of the United States. When the words of the song that accompany the title are sung images of the beauty and majesty of the country are conjured up in the mind. In the background the stars and stripes waves and a tear forms in the eyes of those that understand what it means to be an American.

 

[moreluck]

John Lennon smoked too many doobies with Yoko OHNO!!!

 

[cachsux]

Which when you think back in History, and the historic churches - it's still hard for me to believe that people were going to church, praying for health and prosperity, while having overworked, poor, slaves working thier lands or cleaning their homes. Or how they killed the natives off, or with 2 A Bombs destroyed so many innocent lives in seconds.
Mind you, same goes for the Europeans (mass killings, torture, etc).
Public hanging and other brutal executions. - Not to forget the Holocaust.

Not that you get me wrong - I'm for the death penality in some cases, but from a Christian point of view - it's totally wrong !
Man shall forgive......
And as many claim, as yourself - America is a Christian society - yet the only country in the western world that still has the death penalty.

America also is the only currency that I know of (probably some others around in the middle east), that have the word "God" on it - as in "God we trust"
Or uses "God bless America" in many political speeches.

Is that any much different then the slogan "God is Great" ?
How would you feel if later Afghanistan or Iraq prints the above slogan on their new currency or uses it in almost every politcal speech ?

If you ask me, John Lennon had it perfectly right, when he wrote the lyrics to "Imagine" !

Sure beats having four politicians and a queen.

 

[klein]

Oh and btw, until the late 70's we used to have the queen on every single bill.
Who knows what will happen when she dies ?
Don't know if we will get King Wilhelm or if monachy on our money will be a past thing.

Besides, we are getting new bills in 2011. They haven't been published, yet. Australia will be printing them for us, because they have the machinery to make plastic bills (not paper).
They say it will save a lot of money, because those bills are almost undestructable, and (almost) impossible to make fakes.

 

[cachsux]

Will they help you buy a clue?

 

[wkmac]

 

[wkmac]

You wasted a lot of time bringing up a debate on the validity of the Bible. I was not offering the Biblical position as proof of anything, My mentioning of the Bible was to point out why many people oppose homosexuality, justified/correct or not. It matters not if you or I believe what the Bible says, however it doesn't change what is there. My intention here is neither to promote nor to condem homosexuality , but to give my opinion on WHY there is so much importance placed on it in the military and in the American society. Remember, right or wrong, the majority of American's believe that our country was founded on Christianity.

Not a waste of time at all. Pissed you off enough so that you posted this in rebuttal:

Remember, right or wrong, the majority of American's believe that our country was founded on Christianity.

I'm betting you are in the majority too. Speaks volumes in reality!

You gonna thump the bible, you might should spend more time reading it!

 

[bbsam]

I personally do not care if a soldier is gay or straight --each to his own. The problem I see -when everyone declares their sexual preference --who sleeps with whom and who showers with whom ??
The straight male or female will now have to put up with flirting or gawking ???
What say you ?

Has the gay male or female not had to put up with it in the past?

 

[island1fox]

Has the gay male or female not had to put up with it in the past?

bbsam,
I am not sure I understand your question. The main point I was trying to make with this thread is that sexual preference in the military should be private to the individual. Many people have given their opinions that the younger generation is a little more accepting. What I believe in the future we will see a criminal case involving living quarters and sexual preferences.
Just an example if a straight male marine feels he is being flirted with or gawked at by a gay marine in the shower and takes matters into his own hands many will say he deserves to be put on trial and gets proper punishment. What I am saying is that we are now putting the staight people and the gays in a situation they should not be in.
It is Christmas Eve so I do not want to sound to negative.
I truly believe "Don't ask - Don't tell" could have been modified that all are treated equally, gays can serve as well as straights but the military code of conduct could have declared that sexual preferences are PRIVATE and should not be decared either way. It has certainly been my experience to see when things are voted on for political advantage and positioning they get really screwed up. (pardon the pun not intended.] Some things are better off without political input
I believe the military and the people serving could have worked this out without being dictated to what they must accept and live with.

 

[klein]

bbsam,
Just an example if a straight male marine feels he is being flirted with or gawked at by a gay marine in the shower and takes matters into his own hands many will say he deserves to be put on trial and gets proper punishment. What I am saying is that we are now putting the staight people and the gays in a situation they should not be in.

I truly believe "Don't ask - Don't tell" could have been modified that all are treated equally, gays can serve as well as straights but the military code of conduct could have declared that sexual preferences are PRIVATE and should not be decared either way. It has certainly been my experience to see when things are voted on for political advantage and positioning they get really screwed up. (pardon the pun not intended.] Some things are better off without political input
I believe the military and the people serving could have worked this out without being dictated to what they must accept and live with.

Okay. What would you rather have ?
A unknown gay guy that showers with you, or 1 that you can easily avoid having a shower with, because he came out of the closet ?

 

[cachsux]

bbsam,
I am not sure I understand your question. The main point I was trying to make with this thread is that sexual preference in the military should be private to the individual. Many people have given their opinions that the younger generation is a little more accepting. What I believe in the future we will see a criminal case involving living quarters and sexual preferences.
Just an example if a straight male marine feels he is being flirted with or gawked at by a gay marine in the shower and takes matters into his own hands many will say he deserves to be put on trial and gets proper punishment. What I am saying is that we are now putting the straight people and the gays in a situation they should not be in.
It is Christmas Eve so I do not want to sound to negative.
I truly believe "Don't ask - Don't tell" could have been modified that all are treated equally, gays can serve as well as straights but the military code of conduct could have declared that sexual preferences are PRIVATE and should not be decared either way. It has certainly been my experience to see when things are voted on for political advantage and positioning they get really screwed up. (pardon the pun not intended.] Some things are better off without political input
I believe the military and the people serving could have worked this out without being dictated to what they must accept and live with.

Why does every post about interaction seem to imply that the homosexual person will be the one instigating any unwanted actions? Why wouldn`t the hypothetical incident you describe not be a gay soldier being harassed by a straight one? I have seen,almost exclusively, more straight people telling gay jokes or calling someone a "ferret" than I have ever seen anyone gay come on to someone not of the same mind.

I`ll say it again. The homophobes are afraid of catching gay.


Fair enough. But everything else should be private also. The last thing I want when I`m going into battle is a bible thumper telling me how righteous we are. Or saying we`re only here because of a democrat president. Or the white supremest telling me we got to go get some sand n****rs.

 

[trplnkl]

Are you Tieguy in drag? You seem to reply only to what you want to twist.
[Q[FONT=&quot][/FONT]UOTE=wkmac;792978]Not a waste of time at all. Pissed you off enough so that you posted this in rebuttal:
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]First of all, I wasn't pissed at all and I'm still not.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]My rebuttal was to explain what you obviously missed or ignored from my first post.



I'm betting you are in the majority too. Speaks volumes in reality!
I do believe that is what the founding fathers said repeatedly, whether it was what they meant....not so sure.

You gonna thump the bible, you might should spend more time reading it!
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]I'm not thumping the Bible, I was only saying where the rule on homosexuals in the military came from. (if you believe the rule to have some other source of origin, post it) [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]I never claimed to be an expert on ....well....anything
Not one place in my posting did I say I believed homosexuality to be wrong nor did I say that homosexuals should not be in the military.
[/QUOTE]

 

[wkmac]

Has the gay male or female not had to put up with it in the past?

bbsam,
I'm just using your post as a launch pad and nothing more but as I have read this thread and listened to folks voice concern about the cohesive effects a gay person might have on a military unit as in regards to it's effectiveness, I realized just how easy that same arguement could be slid over and used in a workplace work group. Sure, these folks don't live together 24/7 but the same overdriven, ungrounded fears could just as easily be made in a workgroup as a means to isolate and alienate someone who is gay. It never dawned on me until reading this thread why so many do stay in the closet or even lead a pretend lifestyle and fear being themselves around others. I've worked around a few gay UPSers who were open about it and I've never felt threatened or in any measure at sexual risk. I was given the same measure of respect and courtsey as I was by any female who knew I was married and devoted to my family or didn't know that. I find that if you act professional in the workplace towards others the same is shown to you and that's been my fortune working around great people. I can say all were/are great people and good UPSers and I've enjoyed interacting with them at work and they help make me successful at my job and I hope I did the same for them. If this can be the case in the private world, I have a very hard time accepting this can't be the case in the public or even the military world. As we so often discover about public figures, they often lead double lives and I'd bet if the truth be known, a lot of society's heros, even the military ones may end up in private a whole lot different than they were in public.

Benjamin Franklin after the initial failures of the militas to the British Army asked Prussian Lt. General Fredrick Von Steuben to come to America and train the new Contential Army under the command of George Washington. He agreed and came over in time to join up with Washington's forces in the winter at Valley Forge. Because Von Steuben spoke virtually no english, he was assigned 2 aids who also turned out to be lovers because you see, Von Steuben was openly and known a homosexual and yet Washington who knew the situation and who assigned the 2 aids to Von Steuben knowing I'm sure what would happen during downtime seemed to accept the situation. The 2 aids were also known for their homosexual whispering and the 2 men were Lt. Col. John Laurens and the other was Lt. Col. Alexander Hamilton, yeah that Hamilton. Von Steuben went on to write the Drill Manual used by American forces through the War of 1812' and he served as Washington's Chief of Staff in the closing years of the Revolution.

Von Steuben's homosexuality was no secret prior to his association in the American cause but here's the kicker question. What if today's standard on no gays in the military were held by George Washington? How might history be different? And on the "this country was founded on christian principles" which does have some measure of truth but at the same time the actions back in the day sure fly in the face of what we try and portray it as in this day and age. Maybe they had a different measure of what is and what is not "a christian!"

BTW: The skinny on Ben Franklin was that he liked the ladies and they liked him. In our day Ben would have been called a "babe magnet!" Who'd have thunk it!