Any treatment centres for homos in Poland?

Why's that? Legal consenting adults being barred from marrying the person they love.


But interracial marriage by your definition is a special right. Blacks were free to marry any other blacks they chose, same goes for whites.


So if the people of a state support it (or better yet, a local municipality), you're ok with that?


Society changes over time. Apparently support for gay marriage is on the up. Guessing the next generation won't care (bigger issues obviously).


Doesn't harm me any, but friends. Personally, I think the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.


It has been proven in other militaries, where the exact same argument was made. It's not the US military, but same argument. Keep in mind, it's not European countries, but "Lib" countries like Russia, Czech Republic, Argentina, Taiwan, Israel...

Let combat troops vote on it with proper background. Most of those guys have served with gay troops from fellow NATO armies with no issue. I think you'd see that the guys in the field worry about completely other issues.

@Convex "guys in the field worry about completly other issues"
Like not to bend under a shower, that is?

On more serious note, I seem to remmember reading something about a faq unit to cause some massacre in Serbia or other Kosovo, because they were too afraid to react, to even try to prevent it.

I don't go for little Lib activist enclaves making their own Lib rules. But if the US population were to vote on it and say they wanted to allow it then you wouldn't hear any more from me about it. That's how the gay lobby should respect the will of The Peeps here in this democracy. They don't.


Same as above.


Yes, the creeping brainwashing and bullying PC has had some success (obviously). But when folks are in the privacy of the voting booth they let everyone know how they really feel.

Hilarious.


I'd suggest reading up on that incident before trying to make an argument based on it. It is sad that you'd mention something like that instead of actually providing something of substance.

...said the guy who keeps bringing the all same tired old arguments.

Bottom line: The People of this nation clearly do not want gay marriage. This should be the end of it.

Then you're a Statist, fair enough. I figured you more for a Federalist.


Combat troops are liberal activist enclaves?


Yup, that's fair enough. The neat thing about the Republic, is that the people can push change, both ways. Universal suffrage was shot down for a while as well, eventually adopted, and now we don't think twice about it.

Looking at demographical information on polls regarding social issues, it's just a matter of time...


They didn't want desegregation either. It's a relevant argument regarding the processes.

Okay, I've translated a few segments of text - to the best of my ability - and just wanted to mention a few things about this totally retarded article.


Prawda.


Nieprawda! This is probably the biggest blatant lie in this whole article, because Gerard van den Aardweg is officially considered a lunatic in Holland.

**Gerard van den Aardweg:

Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg (Born in Haarlem, 1936.) used to think that homosexuality was curable and subjected gays to his therapy. However, recent publications, studies and research regarding this subject disproved his theories, and debunked this myth, because it's scientifically proven, aswell as commonly accepted by psychologists and psychiatrists today, that homosexuality isn't curable. It will probably not surprise anyone that Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg was a deeply religious Catholic, who wrote books about the Miracle of Fatima, and among many other things, he denied evolution. Wow, a 74 year old senile Professor, who is in fact one of the last psychologists on this planet who still believes that homesexuality is curable. Oh, and keep in mind that last so-called study dates back from 1961, when homosexuality was still reviled, and considered socially unacceptable. (Totally unacceptable, I might add!)


*** In the period of time where Gerard van den Aarberg studied his subjects there was still a lot of gay-bashing in Holland, and a lot of people were deeply and strictly religious back then. (which is no longer the case.) Oh, and gay-activists totally deny this data, because it's biased research, and a little out-dated to say the least. Of course, this bullshit article completely fails to mention any of this.

So, if there isn't anymore rubbish you wish to post about Holland, I guess I'll just leave it at that. Any Polish people who are reading this: You should be deeply ashamed of the fact that articles like this are written in Poland.


Written on Monday, the seventh of January, in 2008. Right. You've just gone back to a pre-war way of thinking! (Does progress go backwards in Poland or what?) Jesus H Christ people! We don't live in 1934 anymore! Sigmund Freud? As if *that's* still the leading authority when it comes to psychology! (Come on!)

Huh? I'm a Peepsist here. If the Peeps decide they do or don't want to permit gay marriage then this is how it should be. Period. And the results of that vote should be respected by everyone. As of now this is not the case.


Are you on drugs today? No, I said troops should vote on it. Same as above.

The underhanded incremental creep of Liberalism is hardly something to celebrate.
I feel certain that had our conservative Christian Founding Fathers even thought of gay marriage they would have banned it in the Constitution.


And thus it should not have been forced on them.


I think it's funny (despicable) when Libs use the concerted underhanded Lib efforts to incrementally change perceptions in society as some "proof" that society has changed for the better and this somehow lends credence to their arguments today.

The Founding Fathers thought Church and State should be seperated. Some of them may have been Christian, but they were Humanitarians first and foremost. They firmly opposed the influence that the Church and the Aristocracy had over people in Europe. (Hence the whole revolution, the whole war, and the whole statue of Liberty thing!) Jeez, you're not going to tell me that I actually know your history better than you do, are you?

I think that some people who post in this thread need to goto a treatment center;)

That is a slight twisting of our history that the anti-Christian Lying Left advances.

no matter how you put it AJ, we (most of us) don't like fags here and I hope, it won't change.

They'd be the homo sapiens then would they?


Sure it was only in 1954 that Bowman added "under God" to your Pledge of Allegiance.

lepiej nie, ja mam ubaw czytajac to... hehe ;)


yes, because the rest is the homo sapiens sapiens... ;)

Looks like change is afoot. Which is ok, there will be ballot initiatives, and they will pass, or they will fail. There will be challenges, and we'll see where we're at in 20 years.


Right, so combat troops can decide if they see homosexuals serving with them as a threat. It'll be interesting talking to the psyops guys that lost translators because of DADT what they think, but hey, it's a good idea. There is a study going on right now polling the military on DADT. I agree with Gates that it's important to take that into account, and then send it to the Congress. Of course, Congress doesn't listen to the military much anyway, but, we'll see.


Some were deists, but "conservative Christian Founding Fathers" is a bit out there. There's a reason that we don't have a national religion and the word "god" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Have a read through the federalist papers or some of the works of Adams and Jefferson to get a feel for what they wanted. Anyway, the Constitution doesn't define what constitutes marriage, it obviously should be a state issue and follow the local legislative processes.


Which is fair enough, George Wallace proved that it shouldn't have been handed down on a Federal level.

It's not too hard to read the Consitution, and I'm sure you've noticed it was hand-written and signed by the Founding Fathers.


And that, of course.


It does matter how you put it, actually, because atleast you're honest about your opinions, vieuws and feelings, where trener just alters history to get his point across. (I just really like sticking to the facts.)

Hey, I'm supprised that thebear45 hasn't had anything to say in this thread as he's one of those secret closet gays!

And the Libs have been upset ever since.


Still trying to pin me as a Lib. Lol...


Yes, they should listen to the soldiers who will be the ones impacted by the change. But Libs won't. They put their feelings and wants above all else, things like facts, science, reason, laws, democracy...

And Gates just came out saying how the dirty LibDems should repeal DADT during the lame duck session before the LibDems get booted from office. Jerk. The new head of the Marines has come out strongly against the repeal and stated clearly that the military shouldn't be fiddled with as some domestic social issue (this a clear shot at the meddling Libs).


Um, no. They were mostly all Christians, practicing to various degrees. And their kids all attended schools where they openly prayed to God. And they all owned guns. They certainly weren't Modern Liberals.


Neither are the words "separation of church and state".
The 1st Amendment was supposed to protect peeps freedom of worship; it is promoting religious tolerance and freedom. Filthy, God-hating secular Libs have taken this concept and twisted it into full-blown religious intolerance attempting to turn it into "freedom from religion".


Right. And it is clear that they built this country on Christian values. In many writings "the Creator" is mentioned. Our oaths all cite "God". On and on...


If our Founders had any idea the crap Libs would be pulling they would have defined marriage... and they likely would have instituted a separation of Liberalism and state as well.


The legislative process is what the gay lobbyists have been trying to circumvent and undermine, as well as the will of the People.

Gates said that? Really recent, eh? Anyway, you can pick your joint chief for a quote, Chairman Mullens is for repealing it:



The first was meant to allow speech critical of the government. Henry spoke out rather adamantly about it, as well as Jefferson, Madison, and Adams of course. No laws, to my knowledge, prevent private worship, or public worship for that matter.


The fellows I mentioned were hardcore deists. They were also Masons. I don't know if they're kids prayed in school, but I do know they went to private non state funded schools. The same kind that you can pray openly at today. Dunno about the rest of the US, but in Texas and Oklahoma, students and teachers can, and do, pray at school.


Thomas Paine would be a good read. Should I hit you with the quotes from the founding fathers? You could worship whatever you wanted at home. It was first and foremost built on civil liberties. Deists believe in a creator, just not the bible. Our oaths have been recently amended to include "god".


Doubtful, over and over it was mentioned that the government has no role in the personal lives of the citizenry, and that the people should be free to pursue their own ways with a bare minimum of State intervention, not to mention Federal intervention...


Referendum, vote, wash, rinse, repeat. That's why we have a Constitution....and any kind of legislation for that matter.

omg...
Do you have any respect for your enemy? I mean COME ON!

Terrorists? Meh, not really.

It seems that simply 'gay marriage' and all the 'gay culture' have a harder time in slavic countries no matter what the local dominant faith is.

The promotion of the 'gay world' to me is a strict "western thing".

here is the new one
Sacred Band was made up of male couples, the rationale being that lovers could fight more fiercely and cohesively than strangers with no ardent bonds...

The Thebans of the Sacred Band held their ground and nearly all 300 fell where they stood beside their last commander
Dont't be such tight cheeks.


from your link:


So what is a point of this thread?
Have you got problem with gays? Try it you might like it after you may complain.

there should be treatment centers for certain activist and a professional promoters of progressivism !

Yes! Yes!

"Liberalism is a mental illness"

So you're saying that we should respect the results of the survey?

Seems like most soldiers and their families, as expected, don't care...

Polish researchers recently completed a study (I read about it in Focus) which concluded that gays generally don't have control over their sexual proclivities and indulgences. It is a genetic thing and you can't just switch it on and off like a tap. They can't treat that which cannot and should not be treated.

In other breaking news, a team of Polish researches have determined that large mammals of the Ursidae family defecate in heavily forested areas.

I have serious doubts about the genetic argument but they seriously think they've 'discovered' that people can't choose what they want?

Negative my father was..um.. gay,and Im far from it, not degrading gays but its CHOICE even if its subconcious. You CHOOSE to act on your urges(or not)

Can YOU choose to be gay, makfetis?