Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
You're probably correct about the deployments in Iraq, I'm not certain. But nonetheless, the British and U.S. troops conduct joint training operations on a regular basis without problems. The British have permitted openly homosexual men to serve in their military for many years now (not sure the exact number, but I think it's been at least about 20) with very little turbulence (none that I can actually recall hearing about).
ROFL!! Telling KC to be fair and honest is like telling Bill Clinton to keep his zipper shut.
Let's be honest, there is plenty of cost to society for all sorts of behavior. Realistically, heterosexuals probably cost society more than homosexuals. With about 97% of the population being heterosexual, and a good percentage of those being nonmonogamous, there are a lot of STDs and unplanned pregnancies that society is paying for.
If you believe in socialism, what the devil are you doing here?
Obviously, a homosexual has not chosen to abide by any such "agreement", and it thus does not exist.
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague deCamp (Lest Darkness Fall)
The edge of it. Market Street in that area divides the Tenderloin, the worst part of SOMA, and the worst part of the Mission district.
LOL! Is anybody supposed to believe that HV read that, or anything else that conflicts with its prejudices, in the first place?
so when you said "this behavior damages society" because "sex is for procreation" that was just hand waving to cover for your real motivation for criminalizing sodomy: a religious belief that it's immoral. i'll thank you for keeping your religion out of my government.
I'm consistently amused by you libertarians always instantly promoting social conservatives to positions of super-authority.
first, the rejection of theocracy does not make one a libertarian. and second, since when does asking someone a question equal "promoting" them to "super-authority"? dear God what an ego. your opinions do not even carry the authority of an honest and logically consistant argument. most of the questions posed to you on this board are intended to uncover your ignorance, not ellicit your insights.
You've got it completely wrong, as usual. If people genuinely shun a certain form of behavior, then it will die out on its own.
For example, the reason Jim Crow laws were passed was not because all whites were prejudiced against blacks -- it was because some whites were not so prejudiced, at least not to the point of rejecting the economic benefits of doing business with blacks.
Society says that it is immoral to drive on the left side of the street?
(No, you can't evade the issue by pointing out the obvious fact that everybody needs to drive on the same side of the street. What is outlawed in the US is driving on the left side of the street. This example, among others, proves that at the law has a significant component of pure arbitrariness.)
Nobody in their right mind is a friend of the process whereby two wolves and a lamb vote on today's lunch menu.
Karl Marx?
Why do we send men off to fight wars?
ever been there?
I agree in general, the language dealing with the way marriages/civil unions are handled should be cleaned up. Let them (gays) have a civil union, as well as heterosexual couples who do not believe in/want marriage, but want the benefits. I'm fine with it since I consider that more of a legal/financial issue than anything and the states can/should regulate the way civil unions are handled since that gets into matters that are handled by the states (insurance, financial, etc.).
At the other end, discussing marriage, I think the government should stay out of it. You shouldn't have to get a license (i.e. the state's permission) to marry somebody, especially when handled in a religious context (which is where marriage belongs). Marriage belongs in God's realm, not the state's realm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.