[Vision2020] Question, V-Peeps . . .

Sat Mar 8 12:11:55 PST 2014

Roger Falen stated:

"Tom said that he knew people in the army that were discriminated against because they were gay."

I NEVER said that, Mr. Falen.  What I said was . . .

"During my career in the Army, I have known several homosexual soldiers, both male and female.

They did not have the privilege of publicly expressing their sexuality."

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2014-March/095742.html

There is a difference in one's inability to publicly disclose their sexuality . . . and discrimination against one because of their sexuality.

Up until just recently, in almost all cases, if a soldier was identified as homosexual, they were administered a general discharge for the good of the service . . . without benefits.

Although I knew of several homosexual soldiers, during my career in the Army, I NEVER disclosed this informaton to anybody.

Ok?

Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"There's room at the top they are telling you still.
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."

- John Lennon

> On Mar 8, 2014, at 11:49 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Saundra says that the percentage do not mater. I agree with that. Discrimination against any law abiding citizen should be discouraged and prohibited where their rights are violated. All people should be accorded equal protection of the law. Tom said that he knew people in the army that were discriminated against because they were gay.  I got out of the army in 1964. I knew people who were gay also. No one I know off treated them any differently than anyone else. I am sure however that there are cases where they are abused. What I am trying to say is that every one should be treated the same before the law and I would encourage everyone to treat those that are different in any way with respect and decency One must be careful, however, not to infringe upon the  right of people to associate with whomever they choose. My point was that everyone should be treated with respect, but not to
> made a big deal out of someone's condition, what ever that my be. It should not be hyped. 
> For the most part you have stuck to arguments in this post ( your last sentence though was out of line). Your previous posts where you call people stupid only reflects on you. Intelligent people have different views. It does not become you or help your argument by  trying  to belittle them by demeaning their intelligence.
> Roger
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: "Saundra Lund" <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> 
>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
>> Date: 03/08/14 02:24 
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Question, V-Peeps . . . 
>> 
>> Wrong, Gary -- it's only people like you who opt to distort things.  That
>> survey captures ONLY those who *publicly* identify as LGBT:
>> http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx
>> 
>> "As a group still subject to social stigma, many of those who identify as
>> lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender may not be forthcoming about this
>> identity when asked about it in a survey. Therefore, it's likely that some
>> Americans in what is commonly referred to as "the closet" would not be
>> included in the estimates derived from the Gallup interviews. Thus, the 3.4%
>> estimate can best be represented as adult Americans who publicly identify
>> themselves as part of the LGBT community when asked in a survey context."
>> 
>> You know, kind of like inaccurate survey results about masturbation . . . or
>> survey results that report the average size of an unaroused male penis.
>> Sucks to be you.  Or all those surveys that proved . . . PROVED I tell you .
>> . . that marijuana use inevitably lead to harder drug use.
>> 
>> Besides, does it matter whether it's 10%, 5%, 1%, or 0.1% of Americans whose
>> are denied equal protection of the Constitutional?  Not to me, and it better
>> not to someone like you who worships at the 2A alter.  While statistics show
>> that that the number of guns owned per individual has increased (due, IMO,
>> to clear mental illness in the form of paranoia), the percentage of
>> households that own guns has fallen below a majority (I think the 34% +/- 3%
>> stat is likely pretty accurate).  If you don't care that 10% of Americans
>> are denied equal protection, you'd better hope the rest of us don't share
>> your rank hypocrisy and blatant disregard of the entire Constitution.
>> 
>> S
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>> On Behalf Of Gary Crabtree
>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 12:57 PM
>> To: Scott Dredge
>> Cc: viz
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Question, V-Peeps . . .
>> 
>> Nobody buys the old Kinsey report numbers any more. Please see:
>> 
>> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-h
>> ow-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/
>> 
>> g
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The usual 10% or the same as whatever the statistical norm is of the 
>>> the broader population unless there is some evidence to show that a 
>>> higher proportion of gays are prone to enlisting in the military.  
>>> Also, the time frame of Vietnam was the 'era of free love' and some 
>>> people who would otherwise have felt pressured by their church and 
>>> family to live a heterosexual lifestyle might have simply accepted 
>>> that they were born gay given a more 'live and let live' environment 
>>> outside areas of the Deep South and Mid-west.
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: thansen at moscow.com
>>> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 08:48:23 -0800
>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Question, V-Peeps . . .
>>> 
>>> Of the 58,000+ names engraved on the Vietnam Memorial Wall, how many 
>>> would you estimate belong to gay soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines?
>>> 
>>> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>> 
>>> "Moscow Cares"
>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>> 
>>> Tom Hansen
>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ======================================================= List services 
>>> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the 
>>> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com 
>>> =======================================================
>>> 
>>> =======================================================
>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the 
>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com 
>>> =======================================================
>> 
>> 
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the
>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140308/91b3ca5c/attachment-0001.html>