Obama's "Dont Ask Dont Tell"

[utbagpiper]

I would stand beside you on any issue regarding the RKBA. If Dave Nelson won't do that, he has his own reasons and is free to exercise his discretion of association. I, personally, have no dog in this fight. I merely feel inclined to argue a point which to me seems important in any discussion of civil rights. Presumably you find it important as well, though obviously for different reasons.

Marshaul,

Thank you. I appreciate that and I think that is what is most important here.

All the best

Charles

 

[Claytron]

Funny that when that logic was applied to homosexuals it was hateful and bigoted. Now that it is applied to heterosexuals it is good public policy.



I'm sorry. I assumed that anyone with such strong opinions on the topic would have arrived at such opinions ONLY after becoming well informed as to the facts that are available. Are you admitting you've arrived at such strong conclusions based on nothing but your necessarily limited--ie anecdotal--experiences?

But it is anyone who disagrees with you who is the bigot?!?!?!

I'm sorry, you see I've played the game of moving goal posts before. It is a waste of time. If you will tell me up front what level of study, documentation, or citation has any reasonable chance of changing your mind, I might well provide some citations. But I'm referencing what is well known facts, if politically incorrect, in the literature. Literature that I mistakenly assumed anyone with such strong opinions might have bothered to read in arriving at such opinions. That you claim to be wholly ignorant of such facts strongly suggests to me that if I provide citations you will do as so many others have done and simply reject the citations.

Did you read the Fred Reed article I linked? It is not an authoritative cite except so far as an honorable Vietnam vet who is now legally disabled from his war injuries but is not particularly religious or even "conservative" might be considered authoritative in providing some non bigoted thoughts on why this is an issue. But it is an easy, informative read. Did you bother to take 5 minutes to read it?

If not, why should anyone think your demand for citations is anything other than an attempt to deflect. If you won't read a 5 minute commentary what are the odds you are going to dig into a 50 page academic study? All due respect.



No, my argument has been:

1-Everyone is entitled to some degree of sexual privacy when ever possible. That is why men and women don't shower and bunk together. Forcing people to shower or bunk with homosexuals is a similar, parallel violation of basic sexual privacy. That you are comfortable with it, or even with showering with a bunch of women does not change that many are not and so long as we recognize the legitimacy of wanting sexual privacy from the opposite sex, we should give some similar deference for desires for sexual privacy from homosexuals.

2-There are legitimate reasons why society treats heterosexual courting and matrimony differently than it treats homosexual coupling or other sexual activities.

3-Homosexuality is strongly correlated with a host of social ills.

4-It is pointless and counterproductive for us to argue about such emotional topics because no one changes his mind and relationships that may be important for working together on RKBA are damaged.

5-I am careful to avoid religious or moral arguments on this topic. I try to avoid insults or presuming ill intent from others...until they offer evidence that such ill intent is present.



Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

In the pro-homosexual political play book accusing an opponent of having latent homosexual issues is a standard tactic. It is one that often works. It doesn't work with me because I'm quite secure thank you.

To be fair, normally we first see accusation of ignorance. Just like we did above with questions about "being an expert" or doctor.

When it becomes obvious that a persons positions cannot be attacks as founded in pure ignorance or evil religious beliefs, then we see attacks based on some hidden sexual issues. How pleased your homosexual friends must be that for all your chest thumping to defend them, you still consider accusations of being homosexual to be an insult, a weapon to use in an attempt to silence your opponents. Since your side likes to make false comparisons between sexual conduct and race, I'll take the liberty of pointing out that "scared about his own sexuality" is no less bigoted and offensive than "you sound like one of them black guys". Think about that.

When it becomes clear that someone won't be silenced with accusations of being homosexual (do you really consider that an insult?) I think the playbook tells you to circle around to accusations of bigotry, and misrepresentations of the positions being stated.



I thought I had.

Here it is again. Homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to be depressed, attempt or commit suicide, abuse drugs and alcohol, and be involved in domestic violence. Homosexual men are more likely than the general population to engage in high risk sexual conduct including multiple sex partners, anonymous sex, and unprotected sex outside of a monogamous relationship. Homosexual men are far more likely to cheat on a partner than are heterosexual men similarly situated.

Here is a citation, let's see if it convinces you of any of these simple facts.

"Teenagers who are gay or bisexual are more than three times as likely to attempt suicide as other youth, according to a Massachusetts study reported this month in The Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.

"The lead researcher, Dr. Robert Garofalo, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital at the Harvard Medical School, also noted that these young people were more likely to engage in other high risk behaviors: Alcohol consumption, drug and tobacco use and sexual activities with multiple partners."

The same study finds that about 3 1/2 percent of teenagers self-identify as homosexual, bi-sexual, or "unsure" of their sexuality.

There, a simple, solid cite from a researcher at a major, respected university. The report is not at all hostile to homosexual or homosexuality.

Many who previously claimed ignorance that such ills were more prevalent among homosexual than among the general population will immediately become experts on the matter and assert that all these ills are the result of "poor treatment" at the hands of society and even family and friends. I suggest you at least pretend to have done significant reading on the subject by waiting at least a day or two before posting such a claim since you have just claimed to know nothing about any such ills.

Of course, such assertions fail the logical test on two fronts: 1-Other groups that are mistreated do not exhibit similar elevated rates of such problems. These include religious minorities such as Jews, or even individuals who convert to say mormonism and are disowned by their families. 2-The elevated risks among homosexuals exist even in States and nations that are very accepting of and even offer protections to homosexual conduct. Canada is literally arresting clergymen who dare to preach across their own pulpits that homosexual sexual conduct is sinful. Homosexual Canadians have similar elevated problems compared to their heterosexual countrymen as do homosexuals in Utah, California, Massachusetts, or anywhere else.

Note that I have not said that homosexuality causes such ills. I've never seen that demonstrated in the literature. But the correlation cannot be denied. All that can be debated are why the correlation exists, and what might be done to reduce the problems for the individuals and thus society.




I don't think any of us care what the dude did last night with other consenting adults.

But if you'd bothered to read Fred's column you'd know that some men you'd never dare call cowards to their face really do prefer not to shower with or in front of homosexuals. They'd prefer not to hot bunk with them on a sub.

Let me try this on for size. "Any soldier who would relinquish his duty to protect his country because there are only coed showers or bunks is a complete and utter *****. You want me to believe that someone who is supposed to have bullets and bombs buzzing by their head is SUCH a sexist or SUCH a coward that they cannot handle the fact that someone of the opposite sex will see them naked?"

Doesn't have quite the same ring of self-righteous indignation now does it? Sounds like someone who is entirely out of touch with basic human psychology in matters of sexual privacy.

When you have done enough reading to have facts to help back up your currently held opinions, let me know. Until then, opinions so strongly held and expressed so vilely without factual basis beyond limited personal anecdotal experience is one of the definitions of blind bigotry.

Charles

I find it hard to even bother reading past your second paragraph where you clearly show that you either did not read my post fully, or did not fully comprehend it.

Here is a statement i made: ***also i believe people assume you are a bigot because you disregard homosexuals as someone who isnt natural and is encroaching on your naturalness and your rights, when in actuality its because you are just a bit insecure and nervous about your sexuality and are just uncomfortable. Thats why i believe you to be a bigot, not just because you disagree with me, so try not to strawman everyone all at once. ***

Please pay special attention to the bolded portion where i clearly state that i do not think you to be a bigot simply because we disagree. You then respond to my post by immediately strawmanning me by claiming i feel anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot. I find it hard ot believe that someone capable of typing out half a novel per post would not have caught that, but if you didnt then thats understandable. Ill repeat it again for sake of clarity: If someone disagrees with me, that does not make him or I a bigot by default. If you want to help yourself understand a bit better WHY i think YOU are a bigot, you can refer to my post i quoted above.

You say you dont care what a dude does with another consenting adult then you immediately back pedal by saying many men in service (including youself i would obviously assume) would prefer not to shower or hot bunk with them. So you dont care yet you still dont want to be around them.... Maybe im missing something but can you explain to me how that is not ass backwards?

I also found the following comment of yours especially funny: "Many who previously claimed ignorance that such ills were more prevalent among homosexual than among the general population will immediately become experts on the matter and assert that all these ills are the result of "poor treatment" at the hands of society and even family and friends."

Is that your passive aggressive and politically correct way of saying that I personally am ignorant and blaming society for the so-called "social ills" you rave about yet still havent seem to proven exist after 10 posts? Seriously.... what is the point of that paragraph? Is it just a statement of supposed fact? More facts that you can insult me for not knowing about and still not even prove exist?

Keep in mind that copy and pasting some random paragraph from some inane study done by some guy someplace for some purpose doesnt count. Something reputable that is WELL KNOWN to be fact. You dont read something and then claim its fact because it was there to read.... Well maybe you do, but i do not.

Whats your opinion on being 50 times more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal with your own gun? BS statistics? But your statistics are sound for some reason? Why do you stand behind one study and not the other? We all know how bogus these studies are and thats why i contend that your facts are nothing more than wastes of text.

Also in regards to your implication that i am calling you a homosexual or a closet homosexual, dont be ridiculous. Claiming you have issues with homosexuality isnt a "standard tactic" its called common sense bud. You have a problem with being next to gay men in showers. How is this not a homosexual issue? Is it a religious issue? A race issue? ...... You say you dont want gay guys next to you, but claim its not about their homosexuality? You dont like the taste of pizza but its not because it tastes like pizza?

hate to go there but uh... Derp.

 

[zack991]

Asking others to "agree to disagree" is just a more polite way of saying "I don't want to talk about this any more, so you need to stop talking too." There is nothing wrong with stating disagreement. If you don't wish to talk about it any more, move on. Others who wish to continue to express their opinions on the matter should feel free to do so.

It's nice to see that the last few posts have at least been civil.

Well I stopped taking because people are acting like a bunch of children and all the insults are no better than me acting like a three year old spoiled brat. I am not asking them to stop, but those who are still trying to be civil with those tossing personal attacks left and right. They are not going to change the minds of those immature members who are tossing the insults. It is one thing to maturely disagree but when it turns into tantrums of insults, it does nothing but bring really nasty attention to this site and its members. Instead of accepting a person’s belief is different than theirs and moving on, we have people tossing around bigot, homophone and other attacks on their religions beliefs and so on. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH with the childish attacks, its a huge reason I have kept up with but I have not posted further.

 

[utbagpiper]

But this has never been about homosexual conduct. Most sexual conduct is still prohibited in a military setting.

This is merely about the homosexual state of being, and whether mere admission of that state of being is sufficient cause to discharge soldiers.

So if the swinger or polygamist wishes to announce to his superiors that he is a swinger or polygamist and then wants to bring his three dates to the ball is that going to be acceptable on the same basis as the homosexual bringing his date? If gender is not important, what makes number important?

Remember, we're not talking about the swinger/polygamist having sex on base/duty. Just being open about who he really is. And maybe bringing the personS he loves as his dateS to the ball.

This is not about engaging in sex. To suggest otherwise is red herring. This is about how many of those screaming that we can't and shouldn't deny "equality of rights" to homosexuals will extend the same logic and benefits to other, even less popular sexual minorities.

You are a strong enough libertarian you very well may. But most won't. And most will refuse to admit their own hypocrisy. Polygamy, or bestiality, or incest offends them in some way. So they are justified in not allowing Pvt Jones to announce he is "married" to his sister and to bring her to the ball as his partner under such conditions.

Charles

 

[slowfiveoh]

So if the swinger or polygamist wishes to announce to his superiors that he is a swinger or polygamist and then wants to bring his three dates to the ball is that going to be acceptable on the same basis as the homosexual bringing his date?

Charles

Polygamy is not a sexual orientation Charles.

 

[marshaul]

So if the swinger or polygamist wishes to announce to his superiors that he is a swinger or polygamist and then wants to bring his three dates to the ball is that going to be acceptable on the same basis as the homosexual bringing his date? If gender is not important, what makes number important?

Remember, we're not talking about the swinger/polygamist having sex on base/duty. Just being open about who he really is. And maybe bringing the personS he loves as his dateS to the ball.

This is not about engaging in sex. To suggest otherwise is red herring. This is about how many of those screaming that we can't and shouldn't deny "equality of rights" to homosexuals will extend the same logic and benefits to other, even less popular sexual minorities.

You are a strong enough libertarian you very well may. But most won't. And most will refuse to admit their own hypocrisy. Polygamy, or bestiality, or incest offends them in some way. So they are justified in not allowing Pvt Jones to announce he is "married" to his sister and to bring her to the ball as his partner under such conditions.

Charles

Polygamy and swinging are, as slowfiveoh pointed out, not states of being, they are the results of specific conduct. This is not true for merely being gay (there are gay virgins, to make this point clear).

So, we needn't treat them the same.

But, if you're asking me if I personally have a problem with swingers or polygamists showing sexual affection to multiple partners at, say, a military ball, then no. On the other hand, I don't see whose unalterable state of being would be implicated by any requirement that only a single partner, of whatever gender or orientation, may attend a ball as the guest of a soldier.

Homosexuality is distinct from these other sexual proclivities you've mentioned in that it requires no specific conduct to be achieved. One merely is, or is not, gay, and choice does not come into it. It thus very much is comparable to race in a way which being a polygamist is not.

 

[utbagpiper]

The "conduct" to which you are referring need be nothing more extreme than simply appearing publicly with a boyfriend. No public sex needed, just appearing together. This is not conduct for which heterosexual couples would be sanctioned.

If you'd like to discuss prohibitions against sexual conduct, to apply equally to gays and straights, like "no sexual intercourse in the shower", or "no appearing in public with any romantic partners", I think you'd find the discussion took a very different turn.

Are you suggesting that if you don't like the orders it is just cause to obey them?

You continue to beg the question by implicitly equating homosexual and heterosexual conduct. The point of DADT was to allow homosexuals to serve while also preserving some sexual privacy for those who don't want to shower, bunk, or otherwise live in tight, intimate settings with homosexuals. So yes, ANY conduct or language that reveals that sexual orientation was a violation of DADT.

The policy was well known and everybody who volunteered for the service agreed to abide the policy. A full 16% of homosexuals then refused to obey those lawful orders.

Deal with the root issue which is sexual privacy (which has very little if anything to do with coitus just in case that still isn't clear).

Stop begging the question that homosexuality and homosexual conduct are entitled to the same social and legal treatment as is heterosexuality and heterosexual conduct. Make a rational case that such is true, and THEN your argument about different standards of conduct for each group will have merit.

Bear in mind that you start at a disadvantage as both federal law and the laws and even constitutions in the majority of our States provide for very clear legal distinctions between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. You obviously believe that should change. But you're not making a rational case for WHY it should change.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Homosexuality is distinct from these other sexual proclivities you've mentioned in that it requires no specific conduct to be achieved. One merely is, or is not, gay, and choice does not come into it. It thus very much is comparable to race in a way which being a polygamist is not.

Really?

Can you provide citations proving that S&M, B&D, polygamy, incest, etc are merely conduct and not inherent states of being? What about pedophilia? I know, it is illegal and rightly so.

But on what basis other than social convention and currently accepted norms do you assert other sexual desires, appetites, and tastes are merely conducts of choice and not driven by the same mechanisms that give rise to to sexual desires for ones own gender?

Think long and hard about the implications here. Do you really want to base your argument completely on the basis that homosexuality is a state of being beyond all choice?

Like "global warming" I know that many try to claim that "the science is settled" in terms of the causes of homosexuality. To be clear, I don't think the cause(s) of homosexuality make a bit of difference one way or the other. I've personally known those homosexuals who swear they were always homosexual. I've also personally known homosexuals (only women in this category) who were quite willing to admit that after a few abusive relationships with men, they decided to never be the weakest person in their bed again and made a very deliberate, conscious choice to seek companionship and sexual intimacy among their own gender. I've also personally known a fellow who was secure enough to admit that he had NO sexual orientation all the way through high school. No interest in sex at all. Post high school, primarily for religious reasons he felt compelled to court women. He ended up getting married and reports being completely fulfilled emotionally and sexually. Studies on identical twins do not reveal a 100% genetic cause.

Bottom line, the honest must admit that we simply do not know the cause(s) of homosexuality. It likely has at least some genetic component like so much else about human traits. But it may very well include environmental factors and even conscious choice.

If the basis for your argument is, "they have no choice" or even "it is merely a state of being" then what happens to your argument if or when science determines that there is a choice, at least for some? Or when science discovers that any number of other sexual appetites are subject to exactly the same causes and mechanisms?

If a homosexual admits that she or he did make a conscious choice and that their desires are not merely a state of being, but an appetite and desire that has been fostered, is that person entitled to fewer legal rights than the person whose homosexuality was caused 100% by genetics?

It is for precisely these reasons that I have never based any of my views on what the cause(s) of homosexuality might be. There simply is not enough real knowledge there to know.

Some on one side will claim it is always a choice and that orientation can be changed.

Some of the other side will claim it is purely genetic, there was no choice, and that orientation cannot be changed.

I think both such groups are speaking out their pie holes. The science is far from definitive on causes.

charles

 

[Tawnos]

Stop begging the question that homosexuality and homosexual conduct are entitled to the same social and legal treatment as is heterosexuality and heterosexual conduct. Make a rational case that such is true, and THEN your argument about different standards of conduct for each group will have merit.

Bear in mind that you start at a disadvantage as both federal law and the laws and even constitutions in the majority of our States provide for very clear legal distinctions between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. You obviously believe that should change. But you're not making a rational case for WHY it should change.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Homosexuality is part of the life and liberty of each homosexual person. You need to prove that homosexuality is not part of them and their natural rights, but a choice they make beyond the standard of equal protection of law. Regardless if federal laws exist that disparage that right, it does not stand to reason that such a law passes constitutional muster. Your own intolerant bigotry blinds you in this discussion, when you claim that laws define what is right, rather than what is right being what defines the law.

 

[utbagpiper]

And in closing, regarding your comment about people leaving the military or not signing up at all ill repeat what ive said a few times here: Any soldier who would relinquish his duty to protect his country because there is a gay man or woman serving next to him is a complete and utter *****. You want me to believe that someone who is supposed to have bullets and bombs buzzing by their head is SUCH a bigot or SUCH a coward that they cannot handle the fact that the dude next to him french kissed another dude the night before?

No offense but if you are/were in the military, in a way im glad you left and/or are thinking about leaving because frankly we dont need cowards in our military. I regret having the thought in my mind that you or someone like you wouldnt help a wounded homosexual on the battlefield just because he is who he is.

Did anyone else notice the bigotry here?

I trust some at least are familiar with the 19th and early 20th century concept of "The White Man's Burden." For the unread it is similar to what W Bush described as the "soft racism of low expectations". Here Claytron engages in the politically correct version of this relative to homosexuals.

If anyone were to claim that an entire group of persons is unfit for military service, incapable of performing well on the battle field, or otherwise less capable based on a single trait, unrelated to the tasks in question, such as skin color or sexual orientation, that person would be rightly branded a bigot. Right thinking people would jump to related personal accounts of how persons of the targeted race or sexual orientation performed better than some other person of a different race or orientation.

But here we have Claytron indicting an entire group of persons based on a single trait unrelated to any ability to perform their duty. What is that trait? It is the desire not to shower or bunk with homosexuals. Most people prefer not to shower or bunk with the opposite sex and that desire is well respected. But if a group of people desire not to bunk or shower with homosexuals, Claytron brands them cowards, historically one of the lowest, worst insults that might be lobbed at a soldier. And nobody jumps to their defense.

Nobody talks about the guy who was a right wing religious fanatic but you wouldn't want anyone else covering your six when things got hairy. No one mentions the guy who made clear he didn't want anyone eying him in the shower, but dang if he didn't take 3 rounds for his comrades and save their lives.

Claytron indites and insults countless thousands of our honorable, brave, and completely professional service members and brands them cowards, unfit for service simply because they prefer not to shower or bunk with homosexuals.

Even if such persons were wrong headed, or misguided, or even completely bigoted, it does not make them cowards or unfit for service.

That Claytron made the comment and that those who agree with his position regarding DADT undoubtedly nodded their heads in agreement is the rankest form of hypocrisy.

To highlight the bigotry of low expectations, Claytron clearly homosexuals were justified in disobeying orders and not keeping their sexual conduct and desires strictly private. The homosexuals can't be expected to follow orders that involve their deepest, personal nature, it seems. But the heterosexuals are gutless cowards if they simply prefer not to shower or bunk with the homosexuals. Never mind the heterosexuals' deepest personal beliefs or feelings. THEY can clearly be expected to suck it up and follow orders.

And yet you think you are defending homosexuals and their abilities?

Think again.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

when i read your comments you know what i see?

...

also i believe people assume you are a bigot because you disregard homosexuals as someone who isnt natural and is encroaching on your naturalness and your rights, when in actuality its because you are just a bit insecure and nervous about your sexuality and are just uncomfortable. Thats why i believe you to be a bigot, not just because you disagree with me, so try not to strawman everyone all at once.

Have you ever even audited an undergrad psych class?

What people believe I'm a bigot? Other than you? Citations please.

If you can point to any statement I've made where I "disregard homosexuals" please quote it here. I disagree with your political position. I've done so without insulting homosexuals. I've not relied upon religious dogma or personal morals. And so your playbook is empty. You can't just discount my "god" or "bible". You can't point to anything I've written that is hateful or that attacks homosexuals. You ask for citations, and when I give you one your clearly refuse to read it. You are out of play. So you resort to ad homimen attacks and then attempt to justify those attacks by claiming I've said something I clearly haven't.

I haven't discounted homosexuals. I've never advocated mistreating homosexuals, though I have probed to see whether those demanding "rights" are willing to respect the rights of others to be bigoted or peacefully offensive if they so choose. I've simply disagreed with your political views. I've challenged some of your beliefs by providing, in a very respectful way, some data that makes you uncomfortable.

And so all you can do is scream "bigotry". Then you turn around and try to justify it.

Post the quote where I "disregard homosexuals" or otherwise say anything that is reasonably construed as bigoted.

And you threatened (or was it a promise) some 5 posts ago to stop arguing with me. Are you a man of your word or not?

Charles

 

[marshaul]

Really?

Can you provide citations proving that S&M, B&D, polygamy, incest, etc are merely conduct and not inherent states of being? What about pedophilia? I know, it is illegal and rightly so.

Pedophilia is not illegal. Engaging in pedophilic conduct, on the other hand, is.

And the difference is, we're not talking about banning people who want, fantasize about, or might like multiple wives. All it takes to be gay is to want, and fantasize about, members of the same sex.

We're not talking about the interesting question of biological causality. For, S&M may well be a genetic tendency, and as you said the science here is lacking.

But it is also irrelevant. I don't think anyone is being drummed out of service for simply admitting a desire to be bound, and if they were I would make the same arguments in their defense.

To put it another way, while there may be an inherent desire to have multiple wives, we only refer to as "polygamists" those who have actually taken multiple wives, rendering the term a reflection of conduct.

Many gays are identified and self-identified as such merely based on their desire, not any conduct (they may still be virgins).

Bottom line, the honest must admit that we simply do not know the cause(s) of homosexuality. It likely has at least some genetic component like so much else about human traits. But it may very well include environmental factors and even conscious choice.

If the basis for your argument is, "they have no choice" or even "it is merely a state of being" then what happens to your argument if or when science determines that there is a choice, at least for some? Or when science discovers that any number of other sexual appetites are subject to exactly the same causes and mechanisms?

Science might provide answers as to causal mechanisms, but the existence of the fact is not in question.

Nobody, straight or gay, chooses their orientation. Did you have a choice in feeling desirous of women? If so, when did you make it, and under what circumstances?

I don't have to be gay to look to my own self, and realize there is no way I had any choice about what interests me sexually.

 

[utbagpiper]

Its comments like these that make us ask for cites, because honestly, it sounds like the biggest load of ******** ive ever heard in my life. Seriously... where do you get this crap? Cut the "try google" remarks and the insults about my knowledge on the subject and just humor us. Where is this information gathered from Charles?

I provided a citation to the data regarding the personal and social ills that correlate with homosexuality. You've lived right down to my prediction in how you have responded to that citation. There is no reason to provide any additional citations. They will have no effect. They divert as we argue over citations rather than discussing the real issue.

I cannot use reason to talk a man out of a position that he got himself into by some means other than reason.

You do not hold the views you do because you've studied the available data. You don't even know what data is or is not available. You hold your position for essentially the same reason that some evangelical bible thumper holds his: As a matter of religious dogma. It is beyond rational thought. That you hold a different view than the so-called Christian doesn't mean the process you used to get there is any different.

One difference is that the religious will at least admit that they are appealing to personal religious morals and interpretation. You don't even realize you are doing it.

The fool who knows he is foolish can be taught. But the fool who doesn't even know he is foolish?

"50% less likely to be abused" just like a person is "50 times more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal" right? Same group behind both studies maybe?

Actually the second study you cite (incorrectly) refers to shooting an "acquaintance" which included not only family members but also anyone living in the same house, friends, business associates, and even rival gang members known by name. Basically, anyone who was known by name and face and had ever had a face-to-face discussion (however heated or criminal) was classified as an "acquittance". And if you had ever actually bothered to read the study you'd have known that. it is merely the most obvious and first of many methodical errors in the study.

Not being a statistician myself, I freely admit that I don't fully understand all of the errors that are purported to exist in the study. But I've read it and found enough errors that I do understand to know the study is bunk. I know that not merely because it contradicts my world view, but because I took time to read it and see what it has to say. And fortunately for us, so too did some honest statisticians who were able to point out far less obvious but even more important errors than the difference between "family member" and "acquaintance." They didn't just call names and discount the study because they didn't like the reported results. They read it and studied it.

Have you ever done likewise with any peer reviewed academic study on any social issue that is important to you? EVER?

Off the top of my head, it seems like common sense that a couple who is required to go through the trouble of adopting/artificially getting pregnant is going to be more prepared and more likely to be able to care FOR a child than your typical "oops how did this happen" straight couple and lets not kid ourselves, it probably wouldnt be too much of a stretch to say that the majority of births in the united states arent intentional.

Sure sounds good. Kind of like "more guns lead to more gun deaths." Right?

Was it Reagan quoting Will Rogers who noted, "It isn't what we don't know that hurts us; but what we 'know' that just isn't so."?

In any event, if what seems obvious to you is in fact reality, there will be some sociological studies showing it. Ever gone looking for any? Even as you penned your remarks? Why not?

You say that the Man+Woman marriage has much more benfits for the child yet you have one seriously overlooked aspect that throws one flaw into that opinion and thats the fact that somewhere along the lines of 50% of all marriages end in divorce..... So even if a Man+Woman marriage and parent situation was better, it would only have a CHANCE of working out good 50% of the time.

Actually I didn't overlook it at all. I just didn't mention it. Comparing kids raised by both parents to kids raised post divorce is one of the common methods for determining the effects of successful marriage. Since you've clearly never read a full study and show no hints of ever doing so, let me save the agony of coming to another obvious conclusion: the other major control groups are kids raised by never been married women, and kids in foster care.

But do you have any idea what the corresponding divorce rate is among homosexuals who get legally married? Don't go looking for the data, you won't like what you find.

Charles

 

[slowfiveoh]

You continue to beg the question by implicitly equating homosexual and heterosexual conduct.

Thank you for letting us know where, and how you truly feel.

Heterosexuals are "superior" to homosexuals in your worldview.

Quite troubling.

The point of DADT was to allow homosexuals to serve while also preserving some sexual privacy for those who don't want to shower, bunk, or otherwise live in tight, intimate settings with homosexuals.

You have clearly never served a day in your life.

In spite of DADT being implemented, *gasp*, homosexuals still showered with other men.

DADT did not stop the activity.
DADT did not stop soldiers from learning sexual orientation of other soldiers.

So yes, ANY conduct or language that reveals that sexual orientation was a violation of DADT.

Incorrect.

A soldier may bring his wife to dinner.
This tells sexual orientation.

A soldier may fill out his DEERS enrollment, listing his wife as a spouse.
This tells sexual orientation.

A soldier has specific instruction on when signs of affection are permitted, but said signs of affection are not prohibited with same sex couples, as they are with homosexual couples.

Military service is a life-altering commitment meant to create an effective war fighting machine. As such, it is imperative that the unit become embedded with itself, and that all personnel comprising said ranks, officers with officers, enlisted with enlisted, form a strong bond, and as such, a wealth of knowledge about each other.

That being said, homosexuality in the units with which I served, was never even a raised issue. We had homosexuals and bisexuals serving in the unit, and when we invaded Iraq, they remain some of the most competent, diligent, and trustworthy soldiers I have ever served with.

Something about getting shot at, killing human beings, seeing the dead and mangled bodies of the deceased and inhaling their odor, having roadside bombs kill your countrymen and brothers in arms, wipes away that low tier nonsensical, and irrational fear that being homosexual and serving, must be a bad thing.

If you think that homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military, or affect the capability of such, I would have challenged you to stand in front of my TC's 249 somewhere between An-Nasiryah and Talil Airfield, and point an AK47 at him.

I don't think his sexual orientation would have played any factor in his ability to turn you into peppered steak.

The policy was well known and everybody who volunteered for the service agreed to abide the policy.

They did indeed, by Oath, "swear and affirm to..obey the orders of the President..."

A full 16% of homosexuals then refused to obey those lawful orders.

This makes me laugh so hard.

You presume to know the actual number of homosexuals within the military, to assume that "16% of them", had actually "refused to obey those lawful orders".

Come on man...stop being silly.

 

[utbagpiper]

I find it hard to even bother reading past your second paragraph where you clearly show that you either did not read my post fully, or did not fully comprehend it.

It is quite clear you rarely make it past the second paragraph of any document that challenges your current world view. Look up "mental dissonance". You should at least understand what is happening.

You say you dont care what a dude does with another consenting adult then you immediately back pedal by saying many men in service (including youself i would obviously assume) would prefer not to shower or hot bunk with them. So you dont care yet you still dont want to be around them.... Maybe im missing something but can you explain to me how that is not ass backwards?

I can try with an example. I don't care what the women did last night. But I don't want to shower or hot bunk with any women other than my wife.

And "not wanting to shower or hot bunk" is materially different than "don't want to be around them." In an office environment who cares? I don't shower or bunk with co workers.

If you want to understand my position, you need to try to understand the notion of sexual privacy. Or want the religious call "modesty." Even my happily married, straight as an arrow proctologist does not leave me hanging out needlessly. Pants don't come done until necessary for the exam. They get pulled up as soon as possible afterward. Ditto for the colonoscopy. We all know as soon as you are under they are moving the sheets completely out of the way, maybe even making a few jokes. But not until you are under. The docs and nurses are completely professional and do all they can to maintain the patient's sexual privacy (or modesty if that term is easier for you to understand) as long as the patient is conscious. Once he is out, it doesn't really matter.

That may not be entirely rationally, but it is reality. Most humans develop a desire for modesty or sexual privacy. We don't care to be needlessly exposed. We especially don't care to be exposed to those who may have a sexual interest in our body. Even if the specific person in front of us doesn't have an interest in our body, if they belong to a group that tends to have interest in our bodies, we generally prefer modesty over exposure. Hence, most guys prefer not to be exposed to a woman even if that woman is a 75 year old nurse or nun or both. Some men have no compunction. Others maybe even enjoy it or have something to prove. But most of us really prefer not to be exposed, generally, to a women. Women tend to feel even stronger about being exposed to men.

In exactly like manner, and for exactly the same reasons, many of us prefer not to be exposed to homosexuals. Some don't care. I think others are trying to prove something to themselves or the world. "Look at me, I'm secure I can shower with homosexuals and not care in the least...." It doesn't matter and I don't care. Whatever floats your boat is your business. I just prefer not to be exposed to homosexual men, or to women other than my wife. I am clearly not alone.

Is any of this making any dent at all in your understanding of the situation? Are you capable of seeing beyond your own views and to give any credence to differing views held by others? Does it help if you think of it in terms of "celebrating diversity"?

Is that your passive aggressive and politically correct way of saying that I personally am ignorant

Nope. Just an observation and light prediction.

You've readily admitted your ignorance regarding well known sociological facts including the personal problems associated with homosexuals. Sometimes homosexuals themselves will cite these facts as evidence they are being mistreated. I honestly continue to be amazed that so many who hold such strong opinions on the politics and public policy surrounding homosexuality are so wholly ignorant of such facts.

Keep in mind that copy and pasting some random paragraph from some inane study done by some guy someplace for some purpose doesnt count. Something reputable that is WELL KNOWN to be fact. You dont read something and then claim its fact because it was there to read.... Well maybe you do, but i do not.

Dude, if you can't find a study given the name of the lead researcher and the Ivy League (and way left leaning) institution that conducted the study, you've got no business even trying to debate about what the statistical, sociological facts are. Just come right out and say, "I don't need none of dat dare book larning. I knows what I knows and you ain't no gooder than me."

Whats your opinion on being 50 times more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal with your own gun? BS statistics?

Answered previously. I KNOW it is a BS statistic because I've read the report and actually seen and understood several errors in the methodology. It is not BS because it would hurt our cause. John Lott has found that increasing access to carry permits tends to lead to a small increase in property crimes. Is that BS? Near as I can tell, the methodology and calculations were sound even though it might not be entirely flattering to our cause. Of course, that Lott found a significant decrease in violent crimes against persons (at the same time there was a small uptick in property crimes) makes it a lot easier to accept. But that is beside the point.

But your statistics are sound for some reason? Why do you stand behind one study and not the other? We all know how bogus these studies are and thats why i contend that your facts are nothing more than wastes of text.

I've read both studies. I find major flaws in one. I find no such flaws in the other. One study has been torn to shreds on factual, methodological bases by other statisticians. The other one, reporting higher rates of suicide and similar problems among homosexuals has not been attacked in similar fashion by anyone on either side of the political debate.

Mature, educated, intelligent, informed adults actually do have a reasonable method for determining which studies and claims are likely to have merit vs which ones are fundamentally flawed. And it has nothing to do with whether those stats agree with our current world view or not. Yes, some stats are flawed or manipulated. Many are not. Sometimes we actually have to go read something for ourselves to see whether it has merit. Sometimes in doing that we learn things that challenge our previously held views.

When confronted with such facts, mature men alter their view to fit the facts. Immature men ignore the facts, or discount them, or attack the messenger.

It has been said that you can explain the most complex idea to the most simple minded if the listener has not previously adopted any view on the subject. But the most simple concept is impossible to explain to the most intelligent of men if the listening has already made up his mind.

And yes, just so there is no mistake, I'm now insulting you. I am talking down to you and exposing and lambasting your ignorance, bigotries, and refusal/inability to even consider a new or contrary point of view. I figure you've got it coming for repeatedly calling me a bigot, asking for facts and cites and then ignoring them when I provide them, and otherwise opening your mouth and proving yourself and utterly ignorant, overly opinionated fool.

Derp.

Oh, and for using a word like "derp" as an insult. May I next expect a rendition of "rubber and glue"?

Simply put, you're not doing the homosexuals any favors if this is the best debating technique you can muster.

And for the record, I'll happily work with on RKBA despite our differences on homosexuality. I only ask that you find someway to work on RKBA that doesn't involve any formal debating or attempts to argue facts.

Are you willing to work with me on RKBA? Or are our differences on homosexuality too much, too important, for you to overlook in efforts to advance RKBA?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

It seems some want to question some basic numbers.

Some 15,000 persons have been discharged from the military for violations of DADT. Under the policy the military does not seek out or investigate someone who might be homosexual. Homosexuals are expelled only for violating the policy by disclosing they are homosexual or by engaging in homosexual conduct.

This 2009 article cits 13,000 expelled: http://www.stripes.com/news/women-more-likely-to-be-expelled-under-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-1.95518

This May 2010 article reports slightly over 14,000 total discharges under DADT: http://servicemembersunited.org/?p=2557

There are about 3 million active duty and reserve military members in the US armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces reports about 1.4 million active duty and about 1.4 million reserve.

About 3% of the population is homosexual.
The US dept of health and human services estimates between 2.5 and 3%.
http://www.avert.org/gay-people.htm shows about 3% of England self reports as homosexual with numbers going up in recent years.

If you want to argue with any of these numbers provide citations.

Otherwise it is just simple math and some basic assumptions.

I've assumed about 90,000 homosexual service members: a full 3% of the 3 million members of the military. That puts the percentage who disobey orders relative to DADT at about 16%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell cites a figure of 65,000 homosexual persons serving. That would boost the percentage who disobey DADT order to 23%.

The lower the number of homosexuals, the worse the numbers look based on 14,000 to 15,000 total, documented discharges under DADT.

Anyone trying to drive the percentage down by claiming the number of homosexuals serving is significantly higher than 90,000 better offer up some solid reasoning for making the claim.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Science might provide answers as to causal mechanisms, but the existence of the fact is not in question.

Red herring. There is no doubt that being homosexual exists. There is also no doubt that other sexual desires exist. That we think so rarely about them as to not have independent words to describe the desire/state-of-being and the conduct that flows from it is irrelevant. It is only fairly recently that society (and a growing number of churches) has recognized the difference between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual sexual activity.

And homosexuality has been subject to a lot of study for the last 100 years. Other sexual desires have had far less research and study. So it is impossible to say what is mere action and what is state-of-being.

But since you mentioned the difference between pedophilia and committing acts of pedophilia, let's consider whether anyone would think it prudent to place an admitted--but never acted on his feelings--pedophile into a position of trust and authority over children. I think most would agree that would be foolish. We don't lock a guy up for what he might do in the future. But if someone actually admitted he had sexual urges towards children no sane person would claim "discrimination" if the local school district didn't hire him to be a grade school instructor.

Now, grown men are not children. No analog is perfect. And the concerns is NOT that someone is going to force himself on an unwilling (or even willing) partner in the communal showers or in the shared bunk hall. The concern is one of sexual privacy or modesty. And whether an admitted homosexual is a virgin or been around like a cheap tire, matters not. We don't force people to shower or bunk with the opposite sex. We should not force them to shower or bunk with known, admitted homosexuals.

Nobody, straight or gay, chooses their orientation.

Demonstrably false as I noted. Did you not read my post before responding? Or have you deliberately ignored my personal experiences for some reason?

I have personally met women who have chosen to be in homosexual relationships specifically to avoid being involved with a physically stronger man. Will you claim they are not really homosexual but are merely engaging in homosexual conduct? Want to draw to draw that line in terms of who gets protections and why? I don't think so.

I have personally known a man who claims no prior orientation at all prior to choosing to court women and marry a woman. Not really heterosexual? Or just an inconvenient exception to the oft stated soundbite?

That these experiences may not be your experience is irrelevant. I suspect they are the rare exception. But if you are going to speak in absolutes as a basis for making a point, I will nit pick the obvious.

You can and should do much better.

Charles

 

[Claytron]

It is quite clear you rarely make it past the second paragraph of any document that challenges your current world view. Look up "mental dissonance". You should at least understand what is happening.



I can try with an example. I don't care what the women did last night. But I don't want to shower or hot bunk with any women other than my wife.

And "not wanting to shower or hot bunk" is materially different than "don't want to be around them." In an office environment who cares? I don't shower or bunk with co workers.

If you want to understand my position, you need to try to understand the notion of sexual privacy. Or want the religious call "modesty." Even my happily married, straight as an arrow proctologist does not leave me hanging out needlessly. Pants don't come done until necessary for the exam. They get pulled up as soon as possible afterward. Ditto for the colonoscopy. We all know as soon as you are under they are moving the sheets completely out of the way, maybe even making a few jokes. But not until you are under. The docs and nurses are completely professional and do all they can to maintain the patient's sexual privacy (or modesty if that term is easier for you to understand) as long as the patient is conscious. Once he is out, it doesn't really matter.

That may not be entirely rationally, but it is reality. Most humans develop a desire for modesty or sexual privacy. We don't care to be needlessly exposed. We especially don't care to be exposed to those who may have a sexual interest in our body. Even if the specific person in front of us doesn't have an interest in our body, if they belong to a group that tends to have interest in our bodies, we generally prefer modesty over exposure. Hence, most guys prefer not to be exposed to a woman even if that woman is a 75 year old nurse or nun or both. Some men have no compunction. Others maybe even enjoy it or have something to prove. But most of us really prefer not to be exposed, generally, to a women. Women tend to feel even stronger about being exposed to men.

In exactly like manner, and for exactly the same reasons, many of us prefer not to be exposed to homosexuals. Some don't care. I think others are trying to prove something to themselves or the world. "Look at me, I'm secure I can shower with homosexuals and not care in the least...." It doesn't matter and I don't care. Whatever floats your boat is your business. I just prefer not to be exposed to homosexual men, or to women other than my wife. I am clearly not alone.

Is any of this making any dent at all in your understanding of the situation? Are you capable of seeing beyond your own views and to give any credence to differing views held by others? Does it help if you think of it in terms of "celebrating diversity"?



Nope. Just an observation and light prediction.

You've readily admitted your ignorance regarding well known sociological facts including the personal problems associated with homosexuals. Sometimes homosexuals themselves will cite these facts as evidence they are being mistreated. I honestly continue to be amazed that so many who hold such strong opinions on the politics and public policy surrounding homosexuality are so wholly ignorant of such facts.



Dude, if you can't find a study given the name of the lead researcher and the Ivy League (and way left leaning) institution that conducted the study, you've got no business even trying to debate about what the statistical, sociological facts are. Just come right out and say, "I don't need none of dat dare book larning. I knows what I knows and you ain't no gooder than me."



Answered previously. I KNOW it is a BS statistic because I've read the report and actually seen and understood several errors in the methodology. It is not BS because it would hurt our cause. John Lott has found that increasing access to carry permits tends to lead to a small increase in property crimes. Is that BS? Near as I can tell, the methodology and calculations were sound even though it might not be entirely flattering to our cause. Of course, that Lott found a significant decrease in violent crimes against persons (at the same time there was a small uptick in property crimes) makes it a lot easier to accept. But that is beside the point.



I've read both studies. I find major flaws in one. I find no such flaws in the other. One study has been torn to shreds on factual, methodological bases by other statisticians. The other one, reporting higher rates of suicide and similar problems among homosexuals has not been attacked in similar fashion by anyone on either side of the political debate.

Mature, educated, intelligent, informed adults actually do have a reasonable method for determining which studies and claims are likely to have merit vs which ones are fundamentally flawed. And it has nothing to do with whether those stats agree with our current world view or not. Yes, some stats are flawed or manipulated. Many are not. Sometimes we actually have to go read something for ourselves to see whether it has merit. Sometimes in doing that we learn things that challenge our previously held views.

When confronted with such facts, mature men alter their view to fit the facts. Immature men ignore the facts, or discount them, or attack the messenger.

It has been said that you can explain the most complex idea to the most simple minded if the listener has not previously adopted any view on the subject. But the most simple concept is impossible to explain to the most intelligent of men if the listening has already made up his mind.

And yes, just so there is no mistake, I'm now insulting you. I am talking down to you and exposing and lambasting your ignorance, bigotries, and refusal/inability to even consider a new or contrary point of view. I figure you've got it coming for repeatedly calling me a bigot, asking for facts and cites and then ignoring them when I provide them, and otherwise opening your mouth and proving yourself and utterly ignorant, overly opinionated fool.



Oh, and for using a word like "derp" as an insult. May I next expect a rendition of "rubber and glue"?

Simply put, you're not doing the homosexuals any favors if this is the best debating technique you can muster.

And for the record, I'll happily work with on RKBA despite our differences on homosexuality. I only ask that you find someway to work on RKBA that doesn't involve any formal debating or attempts to argue facts.

Are you willing to work with me on RKBA? Or are our differences on homosexuality too much, too important, for you to overlook in efforts to advance RKBA?

Charles

Another very long, very articulate post about absolutely...NOTHING. Your entire post consists of your CLAIMS regarding other peoples opinions, misguided studies and ridiculously ignorant "facts".

Many people can ignorantly swing around stats and facts they pulled off some random website they cannot even remember, while reading articles they cannot even recall. Some people are more intelligent and require proof.

Once again sir ill ask you, why, after countless posts of incredible length, can you not provide a link to any of these studies? These facts? You say things like "homosexuals are 50% more likely to abuse their children", yet even after making such a disgustingly innacurate claim you STILL refuse to provide a SHRED of evidence, instead forcing us to go out and research and prove your facts for you.

Unfortunately, Derp has been one of the most applicable comments regarding your posts so i apologize but it still stands.

 

[utbagpiper]

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Homosexuality is part of the life and liberty of each homosexual person. You need to prove that homosexuality is not part of them and their natural rights, but a choice they make beyond the standard of equal protection of law. Regardless if federal laws exist that disparage that right, it does not stand to reason that such a law passes constitutional muster. Your own intolerant bigotry blinds you in this discussion, when you claim that laws define what is right, rather than what is right being what defines the law.

There is no law denying homosexuals any rights.

There are merely laws that extend certain benefits to married couples that are not extended to unmarried couples. And marriage is defined based on time proven benefits.

If you or others want to redefine marriage, it is your burden to prove that your newly defined relationship is substantially similar and offers substantially similar benefits to society. A few years back that was done regarding interracial marriage. Turns out that US anti-miscegenation laws were the historic anomaly. Inter-racial and inter-tribal and inter-clan marriages are the historic norm; long used to unite families or kingdoms.

There is no right to serve in the military. And there are a lot of traits that keep you out of service. The guy who is 7 foot tall is not going to pilot a fighter jet. Men don't get to shower with the women.

And for nearly 20 years homosexuals have been expected to keep their orientation private so as to respect the sexual privacy (ie modesty) of their fellow service members.

You have strong feelings about what should be. I respect that. But you fundamentally misunderstand law. Either we abide original intent or the 2nd amendment is "interpreted" away because times change. By the same token, nothing written in our federal or any State constitution prior to about 1990 can possibly be construed as being intended to guarantee that homosexual conduct be treated on equal footing with marriage between a man and a woman or even heterosexual conduct generally.

You want such a protection to exist. But it does not exist in the original intent. So either we junk the whole concept of original intent and the protections of the 2nd amendment, OR you propose a new amendment to add the rights and protections you want. The civil war amendments did that for blacks. We did it for 18 year olds and women to vote.

If you accept the power of the courts or even congress to go inventing new constitutional rights just because you really really think they should be there, then you accept their power to negate constitutional rights that someone else really really thinks should not be there.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Another very long, very articulate post about absolutely...NOTHING. Your entire post consists of your CLAIMS regarding other peoples opinions, misguided studies and ridiculously ignorant "facts".

Have you made ANY attempt to google the author, school or study I cited regarding the suicide rates among homosexuals? ANY at all? Bothered googling the subject matter in the least? No, I'm not going to spoon feed someone who has never read a peer reviewed article in his life. Go find it. Or one of the dozen others readily available. OR, try to find any study that contradicts my claims of higher suicide rates among homosexuals.

You haven't even read the studies on gun control issues. You use the same wrong terminology as the press used when reporting on it and regurgitate that it was bunk (which it was) but never bothered to read the study about shooting "family members".

I made an honest attempt to explain to you yet again why some of us don't want to shower with homosexuals. You continue to ignore it.

You say things like "homosexuals are 50% more likely to abuse their children",

Nope, I NEVER said that. And I defy you to find any place I did.

That you think I did demonstrates a complete inability to comprehend what you read.

I quoted a study that found children raised by their married parents were about 50% less likely to suffer various forms of abuse or neglect that other children. I offered that as evidence of the benefits of marriage, NOT as an attack on homosexuals because the study did not even deal with homosexuals. It was comparing married couples with single parents and unmarried parents. Homosexual parents might well provide similar benefits to their children as do married heterosexual parents. They MIGHT. But I can't find any real studies that offer up such data. Can you?

And since you are clearly as bad at math as you are at reading comprehension let me explain that being 50% less likely on the one hand is not the same as being 50% more likely on the other. As a simple example, 50% of 200 is 100. But 50% more than 100 is only 150. Kind of freaky how those numbers work out there isn't it? When your 401k loses 10% on week and then gains 10% the next week, you are still below where you started.

What is the highest level of math you've ever studied? And passed the course with better than a C-?

yet even after making such a disgustingly innacurate claim you STILL refuse to provide a SHRED of evidence, instead forcing us to go out and research and prove your facts for you.

It really is unfair of me since you are clearly completely incapable of either confirming OR refuting anything I've asserted as facts. Given everything short of a URL, you can't find the study I've cited from HARVARD of all places. So you haven't read it. But you know it is junk. Never mind that the conclusion of the study is very pro-homosexual. Some of the findings contradict your current world view and so you know it is junk.

Unfortunately, Derp has been one of the most applicable comments regarding your posts so i apologize but it still stands.

No need to apologize. You can only use words you know and lack of reading will often reduce the odds of gaining a functioning vocabulary.

Charles