Judge Halts DADTFollow

If the "Good Old Southern Boys between 18-21" isn't stupid he will. Granted, with all of the GOSBs, and you, I've dealt with I don't exclude the possibility of retardation. I mean, the whole "Southern Hospitality" thing translates better to "Do what you want, I'm too much of a ***** to assert myself." I know you've never been in a real fight, much less one where you could possibly die, but when you're in a fire fight you simply don't have time to worry about sexual orientation. Your first thought when someone goes down is "Can I take a moment of my time to bandage him/her up so he/she can keep firing?" I'm not sure why you think survival isn't the foremost thought in any soldier's mind.

Might I also add that if its found out that the GOSB you're so fond of didn't do anything to save any soldier's life ... well, they'll have a really hard time when they get back, what with jail time and dishonorable discharge being the least of the punishments. We take that whole Army Creed thing pretty serious.

But hey, what do I know, right? I'm in the kiddy corner getting shot at and blown up while the real men like you are ... nope, I can't even continue that without hurting myself from the laughter.

That was exactly my point. I tried to verify the means that 30-year old article used, or the parameters, or ANYTHING, but besides that one statistic you spoke of, none of it is available. There is NO other research showing the same thing, and I can't even verify the methods used by Reuda. If it was such a true statistic, it seems pretty likely someone else somewhere in the history of anti-gay crusading would have found the same or similar results and posted them. They would have made a fortune from anti-gay groups attempting to restrict equal rights in the courts and needing "educated" statistics on it.

Here, how's this. You brought up the source, so YOU find the actual statistics used to determine it. Until then it's a very shady statistic that's from 30 years ago at best.



Not if you have the means to determine how the result was reached. If they said "You can see how the data was conducted by buying out $275 book!" then you'd definitely have a point... but that's now what happens. Your get the questions asked, the amount of respondents, and the variability. Amazing!


Yeah, you keep saying this but never once have you shown it.

Dang, you're right. Why use jets when we have horses! We should totally never change the military! Oh, and keep out all the blacks, and Hispanics, and Native Americans, and Asians... and women!?! Keep them the hell away!




I know you don't read or care about statistics :-P You've admitted as much before. Sorry, willful ignorance doesn't trump mathematics in my mind. And I'm sorry, you did read Reuda's book then? Please, let me know how the statistics were collected.

And dude, you're an idiot. I'm a social liberal through and through. I've ALWAYS said as much. Perhaps you're mistaking liberal with Democrat? I've never been a Democrat.

He can't afford antibiotics because of his CD changer collection

Yeah, like people who kill for a living.

If there was a draft, I might begin to see a bit of your point. Since there isn't, however, you're just babbling on about nothing. You have this strange notion implanted in to you about morality being static.

Curious, varus, do you eat pork?

This statement doesn't negate the argument. You claim that soldiers are mainly Christian and are against homosexuality, and would apparently feel icky serving alongside homosexuals. I contend, by your same argument, that IF soldiers are mainly Christian (which is debatable), then they should also feel icky serving alongside (and being) killers. Refute that statement.

This is just going to turn into another word battle...

Yes, but language is complex and words may have many different meanings. You never answered my question... do you eat pork?

Hey, by that definition, abortion isn't murder, either! Who knew?

You know what else Jesus didn't teach against? Homosexuality.

Cool, isn't it?

Rather than try and rationalize the eating of pork using the Bible, which makes no sense whatsoever given all the conflicting statements you just pointed out yourself, just say "Everyone should eat bacon because its awesome."