[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 16, 6:07 am, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:



No, marriage of any sort is not a natural mode for elephants

Nor is it a natural mode for humans.

those few societies thta have foregone marriage have wandered
down anthropological dead ends.

I think I see your argument now:

http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org...utMarriage.htm

Or perhaps you can provide some evidence of these societies that have
"wandered down anthropological dead ends."

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 16, 7:48 am, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

Clyde has already expressed his approval of the military's
institutionalized homophobia.
actually, i am undecided about gays in the military.
i would like to see it, but only
if it doesn't interfere with military performance.

Thank you for making my point, you ignorant slut.

LOL

[Clyde Slick]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:
On Mar 16, 5:56 am, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:



The simple fact that they cannot tell the truth forces them into a
lie. They have to live a lie, 24/7.

Consider, for example, if you were not allowed to discuss your spouse,
your marital status, or people you were dating at work, but others
were.

right, they have to be circumspect, but
that is not lying.

It's funny. I already know you won't understand something before I
post it."


Agreement is not the same as understanding
do you agree?
do you understand?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 16, 5:37 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:





On Mar 16, 5:56 am, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:

The simple fact that they cannot tell the truth forces them into a
lie. They have to live a lie, 24/7.

Consider, for example, if you were not allowed to discuss your spouse,
your marital status, or people you were dating at work, but others
were.

right, they have to be circumspect, but
that is not lying.

It's funny. I already know you won't understand something before I
post it."

Agreement is not the same as understanding
do you agree?

Sure, but that's not at all what I'm talking about.

do you understand?

See above.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 16, 5:35 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:



Why don't you just admit that you don't like gays and get it out in
the open? You'll feel much better. You can openly call them names and
**** then. You won't have to dance around so much.

I neither like nor dislike them, as a group.
Same as I feel about other groups, such as Christian's,
Norwegians, short people, Asians, and old people.

Which group is "Brucie" in?

The gooks? The crackers? The fisheaters?

Or can "Brucie" be a "gook"?

[paul packer]

On 16 Mar 2007 15:27:42 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

On Mar 16, 6:03 am, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:

On Mar 15, 8:04 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Consider, for example, if you were not allowed to discuss your spouse,
your marital status, or people you were dating at work, but others were.

Clyde has already expressed his approval of the military's
institutionalized homophobia.

No doubt in reference to the psuedoscientific "natural mode" argument.

the 'natural mode" in regarding defending one's
home is not sexual in nature. the question is, how does it impact our
military's abilities.

Then one should look to the militaries of other nations that allow
gays to serve to see how they have been impacted. There is no shortage
of other nations that allow gays to serve. The answer is, they haven't
in any way negatively impacted those militaries.

I suppose you are going to drag out the old "unit cohesion" argument
now? Perhaps they should have gay battalions like they did with
blacks, back when they were afraid that integrating blacks into the
military would affect "unit cohesion."


What about the Theban Band of ancient Greece? Made up entirely of
lovers on the theory that no man with any self-respect would want to
be seen by his lover fleeing a battlefield; plus of course one would
fight so much harder to protect one's lover. It was considered
invincible until finally overwhelmed by a hugely superior force.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Mar 17, 1:09 am, (paul packer) wrote:
On 16 Mar 2007 15:27:42 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Mar 16, 6:03 am, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:

On Mar 15, 8:04 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Consider, for example, if you were not allowed to discuss your spouse,
your marital status, or people you were dating at work, but others were.

Clyde has already expressed his approval of the military's
institutionalized homophobia.

No doubt in reference to the psuedoscientific "natural mode" argument.

the 'natural mode" in regarding defending one's
home is not sexual in nature. the question is, how does it impact our
military's abilities.

Then one should look to the militaries of other nations that allow
gays to serve to see how they have been impacted. There is no shortage
of other nations that allow gays to serve. The answer is, they haven't
in any way negatively impacted those militaries.

I suppose you are going to drag out the old "unit cohesion" argument
now? Perhaps they should have gay battalions like they did with
blacks, back when they were afraid that integrating blacks into the
military would affect "unit cohesion."

What about the Theban Band of ancient Greece? Made up entirely of
lovers on the theory that no man with any self-respect would want to
be seen by his lover fleeing a battlefield; plus of course one would
fight so much harder to protect one's lover. It was considered
invincible until finally overwhelmed by a hugely superior force.

"This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500
service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of
whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24
foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the
fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting
morale or recruitment problems."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

I served as the only US soldier in my area when I was deployed (I was
attached to a foreign HQ). Several of the other armies had gays openly
serving. No big deal.