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



Liberal is now Progressive!!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.

Garbage men are sanitation engineers.SeattleGriz wrote:Liberal is now Progressive!!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 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.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."

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: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.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."


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?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.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."

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.Liberal is now Progressive!!


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



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.JohnStOnge wrote: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.Liberal is now Progressive!!

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


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.