Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

more evenly split when it comes to homosexuals.





Larger percentage are okay with homosexuals serving as long as they keep quiet about being homosexual.

Which is even all the more reason for Obama to just grow a backbone and do what Truman did - just issue the Executive Order and let's go about the job of implementing the order. For a President who is struggling at times to define himself, this would be one of the easiest things to do.

That disparity is unbelievable. But I guess that's the power of word use in phone surveys.

Why is this poll surprising?


You guys can act like victims all you want, most of us know the truth.

If this poll is legit, it kinda makes one wonder about people's definitions. Since when are "gay men and lesbians" not "homosexual?"

SuperHornet wrote:If this poll is legit, it kinda makes one wonder about people's definitions. Since when are "gay men and lesbians" not "homosexual?"

It just proves the percentage of idiots that participated in the survey.

SuperHornet wrote:If this poll is legit, it kinda makes one wonder about people's definitions. Since when are "gay men and lesbians" not "homosexual?"

thats why I posted it... its funny.

Sometimes poll results can be completely (turns on inner Rahm) retarded!.

Reminds me of an episode of The West Wing where Josh Lyman keeps repeating a poll result the whole episode before flipping out about it at the end. “68% say we spend too much on foreign aid. 59% want foreign aid cut.”

Well, I guess I can now see why it's so important to homosexuals to have others avoid using a word that accurately describes their condition. Now I see why they formed a committee to foster having words like "Gay" and "Lesbian" used rather than "Homosexual." Well, I already kind of knew but the numbers are more dramatic than I would've thought.

Amazing the way it's possible to change perception just by chaning the word used to describe reality from one that actually does describe the reality to one that puts a more palatable face on it.

JohnStOnge wrote:Well, I guess I can now see why it's so important to homosexuals to have others avoid using a word that accurately describes their condition. Now I see why they formed a committee to foster having words like "Gay" and "Lesbian" used rather than "Homosexual." Well, I already kind of knew but the numbers are more dramatic than I would've thought.

Amazing the way it's possible to change perception just by chaning the word used to describe reality from one that actually does describe the reality to one that puts a more palatable face on it.

Liberal is now Progressive!!

SeattleGriz wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Well, I guess I can now see why it's so important to homosexuals to have others avoid using a word that accurately describes their condition. Now I see why they formed a committee to foster having words like "Gay" and "Lesbian" used rather than "Homosexual." Well, I already kind of knew but the numbers are more dramatic than I would've thought.

Amazing the way it's possible to change perception just by chaning the word used to describe reality from one that actually does describe the reality to one that puts a more palatable face on it.

Liberal is now Progressive!!

Garbage men are sanitation engineers.

I could never figure out people who don't like homosexuals are opposed to their service in the military. They should be like, "Sure, let them serve. Put them on the front lines."

I don't have a problem with gays. I absolutely LOVE fags.

But I fvcking hate homosexuals.

JoltinJoe wrote:I could never figure out people who don't like homosexuals are opposed to their service in the military. They should be like, "Sure, let them serve. Put them on the front lines."

I agree, if all other men were homosexual, all the poon would be mine.

JoltinJoe wrote:I could never figure out people who don't like homosexuals are opposed to their service in the military. They should be like, "Sure, let them serve. Put them on the front lines."

That's not the problem at all. I don't hate homosexuals and I'm a big fan of lesbians in general, but I don't want them to serve openly.

bobbythekidd wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I could never figure out people who don't like homosexuals are opposed to their service in the military. They should be like, "Sure, let them serve. Put them on the front lines."

That's not the problem at all. I don't hate homosexuals and I'm a big fan of lesbians in general, but I don't want them to serve openly.

The clock is ticking before the first ACLU lawsuit against the Army for not allowing a gay male crossdresser to wear a women's army uniform to the post. And the Army will cave....just like they did with the turbans.

bobbythekidd wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I could never figure out people who don't like homosexuals are opposed to their service in the military. They should be like, "Sure, let them serve. Put them on the front lines."

That's not the problem at all. I don't hate homosexuals and I'm a big fan of lesbians in general, but I don't want them to serve openly.

Why? Why cant a man willing to die for his country be allowed to walk into a gay club while off duty without worrying someone will recognize him and report him. Why should a man willing to die for his country have to hide relationships fearing a fellow soldier will find out he has a boyfriend or husband and report him. WHY?

Liberal is now Progressive!!

My understanding, correct or not, is that Progressives of the early 20th Century moved towards being called "Liberal" because the "Progressive" moniker was becoming unpopular. So the Progressive movement became known as the Liberal movement. Now, as I understand it, things have come full circle and the same basic movement in terms of philosophical outlook has made an effort to become known as "Progressive" again because "Liberal" was becoming unpopular.

UNHWildCats wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:
That's not the problem at all. I don't hate homosexuals and I'm a big fan of lesbians in general, but I don't want them to serve openly.

Why? Why cant a man willing to die for his country be allowed to walk into a gay club while off duty without worrying someone will recognize him and report him. Why should a man willing to die for his country have to hide relationships fearing a fellow soldier will find out he has a boyfriend or husband and report him. WHY?

I have covered this many times on other threads. It has nothing to do with the patriotism or sacrifices of a gay soldier.

Since the "why" question came up: My belief is that potential for sexual/romantic attraction between members of the military should be minimized. For that reason I believe participation in the miliary should be limited to heterosexual males. Yes, that means that I do not think women should be serving in the military. I believe that if you have to chose one group among those that exist (heterosexual male, homosexual male, heterosexual female, homosexual female, bisexual either), heterosexual male is obviously the group to pick.

It is not even possible to put homosexuals into the military and avoid unacceptably high potential for sexual and/or romantic attraction between members. As soon as there are more than two people, the potential has to exist.

I know some have argued that sexual and/or romantic attraction between members may actually help. Stuff like fighting harder because you're in love with others and have that extra bond. I do not agree with that. I believe that sexual and/or romantic attraction between members is a distraction and also presents potential for division based on jealousy, etc. All those things that happen when sexual and/or romantic relationships go bad.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Liberal is now Progressive!!

My understanding, correct or not, is that Progressives of the early 20th Century moved towards being called "Liberal" because the "Progressive" moniker was becoming unpopular. So the Progressive movement became known as the Liberal movement. Now, as I understand it, things have come full circle and the same basic movement in terms of philosophical outlook has made an effort to become known as "Progressive" again because "Liberal" was becoming unpopular.

Early progressivism was a reaction to the consolidated power of the Gilded Age and the Industrial Revolution. Modern progressivism is a reaction to the consolidated power of corporatism. Both are egalitarian concepts with the modern version also representing a backlash to the corporatism within the Democratic Party.

As we all know, the term liberal has been effectively corrupted into a pejorative, used to desribe the unintended consequences of leftist policies and the nanny state while failing to recognize the many benefits that have coincided with liberal thought including the founding of our country.

The two terms are currently being used interchangeably, but there are differences.

Personally, I like the Teddy Roosevelt vesion.

JoltinJoe wrote:I could never figure out people who don't like homosexuals are opposed to their service in the military. They should be like, "Sure, let them serve. Put them on the front lines."

Problem is, there's little need for gays on the front line...

...since the military stopped using FLAME throwers.

JoltinJoe wrote:I could never figure out people who don't like homosexuals are opposed to their service in the military. They should be like, "Sure, let them serve. Put them on the front lines."

But imagine the confusion...

...watching the remakes...

...with Audie Murphy crouched in a foxhole, saying he'd give anything "...for a butt and a cup of Joe".

It makes eminent sense to me. Think about it: after the front line of straight male troops rakes the hell out of some Taliban mud hovel village, the gay "rear echelon" can move in, clean up, and redecorate! It's a win-win situation.

Ivytalk wrote:It makes eminent sense to me. Think about it: after the front line of straight male troops rakes the hell out of some Taliban mud hovel village, the gay "rear echelon" can move in, clean up, and redecorate! It's a win-win situation.

JohnStOnge wrote:Well, I guess I can now see why it's so important to homosexuals to have others avoid using a word that accurately describes their condition. Now I see why they formed a committee to foster having words like "Gay" and "Lesbian" used rather than "Homosexual." Well, I already kind of knew but the numbers are more dramatic than I would've thought.

Amazing the way it's possible to change perception just by chaning the word used to describe reality from one that actually does describe the reality to one that puts a more palatable face on it.

I've always thought that if gays and lesbians would use some other word rather than marriage, then there wouldn't be any problem with america accepting gay marriage. Sounds silly I know, but it is true.