| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Reading the explanation part, I concede your point. I do wonder if that has ever been used in a court martial though. Back to your discussion... I haven't really been following this thread. | ||
| Midnightrider |
I'd venture a guess it has - but probably rarely when practiced by consensual adults | ||
| Sifo |
I would imagine that in a case of non-consenting partners a charge of rape would be more likely than sodomy. My guess is that the number of times it's been used for oral sex could be counted on one had of a guy that hold M80s too long. | ||
| Midnightrider |
I don't have stats but I have seen cases with charges of rape and sodomy. More charges = more time (punishment). But never remember a case of sodomy among consensual heteros. Our JAGs a friend, I'll ask him | ||
| Midnightrider |
Back to Blake I have to hand it to you, you do make me laugh. I like that. I can't answer what Secretary Gates would do "if" anything. Only he can answer that. So the question is of course, rhetorical. Given your penchant for rhetoric, imagine my surprise. I also like the way you throw around "ideological" like it's a bad thing. Maybe you are confusing it with "idealistic" From the New World Encyclopedia: "The main purpose behind an ideology is to affect change in society through a normative thought process. The application of ideologies in public matters makes them central to politics" Here comes the good part ( from the same reference) " Implicitly, every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. " Back to your earlier post "I don't need a homosexual psychologist to tell me that homosexuality is deviant. deviant: Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society." Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language The problem with definitions is that they are not as absolute as some would like them to be. Other people a lot smarter than me have made the observation that if you apply that kind of interpretation, then those that are color-blind or left-handed [or over seven feet tall] are also "deviant" So once again, I'm saying your argument doesn't hold water. Then after I stated that the majority of hetero service members were probably guilty of sodomy in accordance with the UCMJ Article 125 you said "I think you are making up nonsense to support your point of view." Obviously you didn't read ( or maybe comprehend) Article 125 Then you said "My sense is that very few females acquiesce to the act of sodomy and if for some reason they do, they won't likely ever do it again." I wonder how you came to that conclusion. Personal experience, perhaps? Not my cup of tea, but it's not as rare as you seem to think The Centers for Disease Control ( and we all know how "leftist" that group is) recently released the results of a survey that showed that 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex. Compare that with the CDC’s 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, where only 20.4 percent of women 18 to 59 indulged in it. So male, female, hetero, homo or bi - choice of partner or route during consensual sexual relations should not be a factor in determining suitability for military service. You asked if I "See the difference? " Nope We have visitors this weekend, including 7 college age young adults from 4 different major US universities. They were asking me what I was so busy with on the computer. I had them all go back and read this thread from the beginning. The younger generation is much more knowledgeable and understanding with respect to diversity than our generation. Surely there's a difference of opinion in their generation too, but the gap appears to be narrowing So thanks again. You made them all laugh too. (Message edited by midnightrider on December 11, 2010) (Message edited by midnightrider on December 11, 2010) | ||
| Whatever |
1. Have you been in the military and went through a "Study"? 2. How much identifying info did you answer by coloring the little boxes? 3. Were you made to feel that there were right answers while being told there weren't any? 4. Is a man in uniform able to discern the third and forth time a question is presented asking the same thing? 5. Are we to believe that a study's results can not be manipulated like a poll? I am still trying to figure out how we got to anal and oral sex from the first post...  More and more I see the badweb as a place for a few to push their extreme disdain of anything requiring a little bit of an open mindedness... This is ridiculous... hence I post less and less here... it has become a parody of itself... I am also hung up on why six dildos is the magic number in Texas... if I had five dildos, not a criminal... but six, an offense to society... Does it matter if you are a collector as opposed to a practitioner? All the more reason to take USA out of ANUS... So far I haven't met any lesbians, either, that have forced me to let them... oh nevermind...  | ||
| Moxnix |
Threads on forums are like anything else. One is not forced to take part. Once again, the point is to exchange ideas and express points of view. And once again I refer to The Law of Infinite Cornucopia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Infinite_C ornucopia | ||
| Midnightrider |
Hey Char The first post was in response to, I think, the release of results in a Pentagon-backed study that tried to determine the climate (acceptance, rejection or some place in the middle) among present-day military members with regard to homosexuality in the military. It was our old friend Blake who first brought up sodomy. My answer to that was that sodomy, as defined within the UCMJ ( military law) was common among heteros in society and within the military so you really need a better reason than that. I think that's how we got here but it's been a long and winding road. And thanks for the Law of the Infinite Cornucopia (seriously). Reading that alone was sufficient payback for wading through all that other cretin's BS (Message edited by midnightrider on December 11, 2010) | ||
| Moxnix |
Now, both sides of EVERY issue enjoy The Law of Infinite Cornucopia. The enjoyment is in the back and forth sharing of opinions and ideas, experiences and observations, etc. If one flips back and forth between Glen Beck and Chris Mathews on the moronoscope, what's the diff in how the smorgasbord of issues is dealt with? P.S. While Blake and I are not in lockstep, I hang out on the same side of issues. Cheers, Meanwhile, I'm getting ready for the crazed nihilists to bring there version of Clockwork Orange to the street. (Message edited by moxnix on December 11, 2010) | ||
| Midnightrider |
Thanks I never had a real problem with a differing opinions. I have big problems, though, when someone insists on presenting opinions as fact, argues mainly with rhetoric, fails to address a counterpoint when called on it and employs fallacious argument devices like candy. The solution to this issue, like all serious controversies, won't be easy. Hell, if it was easy it would be already solved. Very few "win-win" cases these days. Good point about TV too. One of the reasons I probably watch less than one hour a week. I think John Stewart had it right when he engaged with Tucker Frederickson about Crossfire - the sensationalist approach hurts America. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
I know a couple of guys that lost their clearances over it back in the 90's violation of the ucmj with moral terpitude, clearances gone, job gone, early out. rumor was once the story broke that well anyone that didnt want to go fight in a shiathole somewhere was suddenly gay that is right about the time dont ask dont tell showed up | ||
| Blake |
Whatever the UCMJ definition, by "sodomy" I am meaning the anal variety; thought that was clear. I've never seen felatio described as sodomy, ever. I'm keeping with the commonly understood meaning of the word. The UCMJ's expanded definition is interesting, but irrelevant to my point as relates to male on male sodomy, the serious health risks involved and the outrageous promiscuity involved. That survey you reference about females engaging in sodomy being ~33%, source? What was the exact wording of the question? The way you report it makes it sound like 30% of women regularly engage in being sodomized. Care to clarify that? :/ I didn't ask you a question about SecDef Gates position; I stated that I wondered what his position would be absent the threat of activist judges. Yes it was rhetirical, exactly as it was intended to be. You presumed to answer for him based on faulty logic. What counterpoint have I ignored that you would like me to address? Smoking is not a deadly communicable disease, nor is high cholesterol, nor is riding a motorcycle. However, all of those are voluntary behaviors, choices. I applaud your recognition that homosexual behavior too is a choice, purely voluntary.  An ideologue is not the same as ideology or ideological. An ideologue is blind to reality in favor of devout allegiance to an ideology; it is ideology become worship. Young folks today are more likely to "tolerate" homosexual behavior? D'UH! They've been barraged by the lies and propaganda of pro-homosexual activists for decades now. How would they not be? Let me have their ear and show them the cold hard facts that have been hidden to this point. Many will be shocked and be led to rethink the brainwashing of their youth. I did. Yet more personal insult? Very disappointing. It is not respectful or honest debate. I keep hoping that you can do better. Debate ideas? Avoid derisive personal commentary? Too difficult? Too much emotion? Bow out. Char, very disappointed to see you sink into personal commentary as well.  I didn't intentionally avoid any point. I never do. That would be dishonest debate, which I hate. I misinterpreted an intended meaning. I'm not a mind reader. The intended meaning was not clear. I don't know anything about a Texas law concerning sex toys. Might have something to do with limiting the number to less than the capacity of a cowboy's own gun. Or maybe it was supposed to be a limit on length but quantity got accidentally put in it's place. Maybe folks were using the things to smuggle drugs into the country. One for each of five days of the week, leaving one day for hubby, and nun'o'dat on Sunday? Would be interesting to learn the reason for the number. Let's please stick to the issues folks, please. If you find that impossible, then please have the integrity to simply avoid posting. The personal commentary, condescension, and insult only make for I'll will and a less than enjoyable BadWeB. | ||
| Blake |
Phone thinks it's smart; please forgive typos. | ||
| Midnightrider |
Interesting poll results here http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm Gallup Poll. Dec. 3-6, 2010. N=1,003 adults nationwide, interviewed via Gallup Daily tracking. Margin of error ± 4. . "Suppose that on Election Day you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Please tell me whether you would vote for or against a law that would do each of the following. First, would you vote for or against a law that would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military?" Vote for 67% Vote against 28% Unsure 5% There are several polls there The tide is shifting. Blake, citing "propaganda" as the cause for a change in position amongst our younger generation, as you have stated, is another example of employing a fallacious argument device (emotional appeal) and is simply wrong. As always, you're entitled to your own position/opinion. But it's an opinion probably no longer shared by the majority of all adults Are you now going to challenge the veracity of Gallup? This is not their first rodeo And scolding others for posting dissenting opinions? Nice touch (Message edited by midnightrider on December 12, 2010) | ||
| Whatever |
Blake, life is just a series of disappointments isn't it?  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
There you go Blake. Section F, just before the end. http://www.dumblaws.com/law/938 | ||
| Moxnix |
Do we get to move into the misogynist versus misandrist discussion? | ||
| Midnightrider |
We could but you'll have to pick up my slack. Mentally going through the things I can say I hate, gender never factors in. | ||
| Whatever |
Maybe I won't interview in Texas...  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
| ||
| Midnightrider |
My first assignment in the Air Force was in Lubbock, TX. I remember during the first week we had a briefing by a DPS State Trooper. Someone asked a question about crime in the local area and the firearm laws. The trooper explained that no one in Lubbock County had ever been charged for shooting an intruder (armed, unarmed or unknown) inside their own home. He went on to say that if you had an intruder and he managed to get outside before you got off your rounds, not to worry. When the troopers got there they would help you drag him back inside. So its not all bad in Texas | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Damn, dont mess with Texas  | ||
| Blake |
>>> Blake, citing "propaganda" as the cause for a change in position amongst our younger generation, as you have stated, is another example of employing a fallacious argument device (emotional appeal) and is simply wrong. Pretending that you've proved a point by calling mine "wrong" is a funny way to debate. It's intellectually dishonest. To prove a point wrong, one must show how and why it is wrong, not merely declare it. Try again. "Propaganda" is the precisely accurate description for the activist agenda perpetrated on Americans wrt homosexuality. The homosexual activists themselves admit it. >>> Blake, life is just a series of disappointments isn't it? I've never viewed it that way. | ||
| Slaughter |
I think a climate for tolerance of hetero or homosexuality has to be warm. | ||
| Moxnix |
Dang, my infinite cornucopia of opinions, ideas and takes on everything is still overflowing. While the subject of the thread has been duly thrashed, it's now out of the headlines. Wonder what this week will bring to replace it. I fear the wheels will never fall off our nation's political correctness miscarriage. But, those of us who have religious principles, patriotic feelings, and subjective hope for our children's future will move forward with confidence that a majority of our fellow citizens are not willing to see ethics go unaddressed. What will the chronically misguided drop on us tomorrow? | ||
| Slaughter |
Sex is STILL far better where it's warm... whether hetero, homo or SOLO. | ||
| Blake |
Wool socks can help with that. | ||
| Slaughter |
OUCH! | ||
| Midnightrider |
This thread is so much like a bad car wreck - you know it's going to be ugly but you just have to look. So Blake, you have an interesting perspective. I call it education, you call it propaganda. I guess it's true; our perceptions are our realities. But what if we were to say, solely for the sake of argument, that it is propaganda ( this a theoretical so don't get too excited)? Then to me that means that you and those that see homosexuals as morally bankrupt disease-ridden deviants were outmaneuvered by - well - by a bunch of morally bankrupt disease-ridden deviants? Tell us honestly, how's that make you feel? Mox is correct, this threads been pretty well thrashed. But before I go I would like to add that as someone with strong spiritualistic beliefs, patriotic feelings and hope for the future of all our children, I am confident that whatever path we take as our society evolves, that path will ultimately be determined and the society governed in accordance with the values, votes and moral sense of a majority of the nation's citizens. What's next? | ||
| Blake |
Sitcoms from Hollywood that ignore the inconvenient truths about homosexuality are "education"? What education are you talking about? Please do explain. >>> Then to me that means that you and those that see homosexuals as morally bankrupt disease-ridden deviants were outmaneuvered by - well - by a bunch of morally bankrupt disease-ridden deviants? Tell us honestly, how's that make you feel? First, once again you aim for the personal. Is it beyond you to discuss the issue? Too difficult? Final warning: Avoid the personal commentary or avoid posting. Second, I neither believe that all homosexuals are morally bankrupt, nor that they are all disease-ridden. Would you like to try again, or continue with your miserable dishonesty? Third, losing battles against the likes of Hollyweird and popular culture is nothing new for those of us opposed to the relativists, or those who clamor for diversity for diversity's sake, or those who preach from the pulpit of "if it feels good do it." It simply steels our resolve. Maybe you've heard of the Tea Party? >>> I am confident that whatever path we take as our society evolves, that path will ultimately be determined and the society governed in accordance with the values, votes and moral sense of a majority of the nation's citizens. Our society is devolving in many ways, falling backwards towards the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah, where the majority of people were lecherous, miserable scum. Pretending that morality flows from the majority is not only dead wrong, but a lethal mistake. America's founders understood this, thus they crafted our constitution to limit the power of the federal in favor of smaller state governments. The majority of people in America oppose abortion on demand. Yet it remains legal to kill unborn babies, the most innocent and helpless of us all. The majority of people in American oppose Obamacare. Yet ideologues in DC rammed it through against the will of the majority of Americans. The majority of people in America want a secure border. Yet it remains porous and our president chooses instead to attack one of our own border states for trying to protect itself from a literal invasion of illegals. You were saying? "Education" you say? Have you had any? Real actual education I mean. Get your money back. Our nation is not a Democracy and the constitution, if it is to mean anything, must be adhered to and upheld as intended. We are either a nation of laws and justice or a tyranny. |
