Author Topic: (Read 3156 times)

yellowmonkey · « **Reply #30 on:** November 11, 2004, 11:03:23 PM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leadmagnet
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yellowmonkey
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by busta_cap
 Not you lead, yellowmonkey.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I usually call myself a Protestant Christian.

And, I don't see where you get off saying that I impose my ideals on everyone else.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm sorry, but I thought you were one of the big supporters around here of the anti-gay marriage admendments and such. Ain't that "forcing your path of Christianity" upon the rest of us?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Supporting anti-gay marriage ammendments to the constitution doesn't stop homosexuals from getting married any more than the law does. It's considered illegal (sodomy) in many states to have homosexuallity, but you can go to just about any state these days and find thousands upon thousands of homosexuals.

Even if a constitutional marriage protection ammenment was adopted, there would certianly be people who ignore it. There would still be rogue priests and judges doing marriage ceremonies.

The law only tells us how things should be according to what judges and legislaters think is right.

As you can see, the law doesn't work unless the people follow it.

So as I said before, I can't force anything on you by imposing any kind of law. I would have to physically go find you and MAKE you do something contrary to your will to be forcing you to do it, and even then you weren't doing it, it would be me making you do it.

I'll bet you think it would suck if that ammendment got passed... well I think it sucks that they won't pass it. Tough luck for both of us I guess.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yellowmonkey
Why is it that you say we treat our womenfolk *that* way? Are Christians too respectful of women and morality for you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Sorry bud, but forcing your women into a life of servitude doesn't strike me as being "respectful".
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well allowing women to endanger thier lives in the police force even though they are not physically equiped to serve doesn't sound like respect to me.

Having women in thier place is more respectful than lying to them and letting them think that they perform as well as men in certian areas.

Suppose I used a fork as a spoon. I go at eat some soup with the fork and the fork fails as a utensil for eating soup. Would I still use a fork to eat soup? No. Women aren't made to do the things that men can do, nor are men made to do the things that women can do.
Why would you argue that it's just as good to eat soup with a fork as it is a spoon?! I never said that women are any worse than men in the grand scheme of things, I only said that they are worse at doing masculine things.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yellowmonkey
Do we place too much importance on chastity or marriage? I say, how can you disregard those things which are so obviously right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
To be honest with you, I find that to be one of your very few qualities.

Lead
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You find chastity and marriage to be qualities of Christians? Odd, seeing as how you think marriage should not be protected, nor chastity necessary. What makes these things qualities, I wonder?

leadmagnet · « **Reply #31 on:** November 13, 2004, 10:39:03 AM »

Yellowmonk

On the gay amendment matterâ€¦

So that is your defense of these nanny-state intrusions into our personal lives? â€œIt might be illegal but you can still do itâ€???

On women in law enforcementâ€¦

Your spoon analogy is just plain ignorant. I mean this in the kindest way possible, but you also sound like a major bigot. Apparently you haven't been out there in the world long enough to meet some of the same gals I've met. I'm not saying that an individual who can't pass certain physical requirements should be a police officer. I'm saying that that a gender requirement is unwarranted, unnecessary and unjust.

On certain Christian qualitiesâ€¦

Forcing people to live a particular life-style does not make a life-style special. That's just evil. You people keep telling us how you need to â€œprotectâ€ marriage. How does two gay people getting married threaten your marriage, pal? That is beyond asinine.

Lead

yellowmonkey · « **Reply #32 on:** November 13, 2004, 04:01:56 PM »

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leadmagnet
 Yellowmonk

On the gay amendment matterâ€¦

So that is your defense of these nanny-state intrusions into our personal lives? â€œIt might be illegal but you can still do itâ€???

On women in law enforcementâ€¦

Your spoon analogy is just plain ignorant. I mean this in the kindest way possible, but you also sound like a major bigot. Apparently you haven't been out there in the world long enough to meet some of the same gals I've met. I'm not saying that an individual who can't pass certain physical requirements should be a police officer. I'm saying that that a gender requirement is unwarranted, unnecessary and unjust.

On certain Christian qualitiesâ€¦

Forcing people to live a particular life-style does not make a life-style special. That's just evil. You people keep telling us how you need to â€œprotectâ€ marriage. How does two gay people getting married threaten your marriage, pal? That is beyond asinine.

Lead

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You and I simply differ on the idea of what is "right" on the issue of marriage.

What I don't see is how you can deny that women (99.9% of the time), given the same physical training as thier male counterparts, perform at lower standards.

Why do you think the military keeps women out of the units specifically designed for fighting and physical fatigue?

I think that you are denying the statistical facts.

I don't know what kind of women you hang out with, but the ones I know are not exactly the fighting machines that you would need for the police force/ military.

leadmagnet · « **Reply #33 on:** November 13, 2004, 08:41:53 PM »

Yellowmonk, we disagree on more than what is â€œrightâ€ regarding marriage. We disagree (more importantly) on what role the government should have in sanctioning our personal relationships.

And I haven't denied that â€œwomen (99.9% of the time), given the same physical training as their male counterparts, perform at lower standardsâ€ although I would disagree with your percentage spread, big time. I'm saying that making a determination as to their abilities on the basis of gender is wrong, foolish, unjust, and just plain stupid.

As to why the US military generally refrains from placing women in combat roles, you don't have a clue. Women are generally kept out of combat roles because the American public can't handle reports of gang rapes of POWs by their captors, not because they can't perform effectively in combat.

As to what kind of women I â€œhang out withâ€, son, not only would some of them take your breath away by their beauty but some of them could even knock your dick in the dirt.

You come on back and talk to old lead when you've got some more livin under your belt.

Lead

Greg · « **Reply #34 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:17:27 PM »

While checking to see what all of the different major media outlets had on their front page today... I noticed this interesting article about a police shooting in England. Not only do they not give their patrol police guns, they do this when the "firearms officers" do have to use them. Of course, we don't know exactly what happened, but it seems to me that these cops are being hung out to dry for doing the right thing. I'm glad that in the US, if someone shoots someone else that had what a reasonable person would believe to be a weapon and posses a threat, they don't go to prison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3976939.stm

News:

Author Topic: (Read 3156 times)

yellowmonkey

(No subject)

leadmagnet

(No subject)

yellowmonkey

(No subject)

leadmagnet

(No subject)

Greg

How brits deal with police shootings