Hal 9000

Agreed. Especially about donor clinics. I don't understand Omni's fears, but then again, I don't think he's here to be understood.

Dude, you need a new schtick. This whole "world traveller/lawyer" thing just isn't very convincing.

Boring and danger are two very different things. You said "danger zone" and now you can even defend that statement. I stumped you with one simple word.

Why?

Interesting, I didn't even know 20/20 was still on the air.

Actually, it's not easy to google. Every article relies less on facts and more on making their case. I've heard $2-8million per year, I've heard 10K-150K for surgeries. I've heard estimates on how many trans people there are and what they would ask from the military. However, at an average amount of transgenders, $2-8Million wont even pay the medications and hormones they require. The estimates quote the lowest amount of people, that the pollsters think are wanting sex change operations and quote only minor surgeries. Google is glutted by left wing articles committed to downplaying and giving the low end of everything. The fact is; just to prepare for sex reassignment surgery costs thousands, not to mention lost production while the person is preparing for surgery. The surgery itself is costly, the recovery time, ,physio, rehabilitation, the meds, hormone treatments, more lost production and the time off to experiance their new body. Then we get to councelling for the person and sensativity training for the entire military and probable retraining of the individual. Now, you'll surely refuse to accept any of this because the Huffington Post will downplay any obvious cost and leave out all the indirect costs, but if you've ever had or know of any reconstructive surgery, common sense tells you that the numbers given are staggeringly low. P.S - Nearly 40% of transgenders are suicidal, so there's that issue/cost as well. Combine that with the suicide rate of military and veterans, and it just seems like a bad combination.

You do, You do think a tweet is official policy! OMG!

Wait a minute! Do you seriously think that a tweet is "policy"? Is that why you're all wet about the fact that the pentagon are NOT acting on it?

They're not ignoring anything. There hasn't been anything put into place yet. As he said, "tweets don't count as policy". I don't know what you think is happening, but if it becomes policy, they'll all go along with it.

I didn't use "faggot" or "Paki" - which are derogatory, so lets try and stay on point. Just for reference; I still say "toilet paper" even though "bathroom tissue" is more endearing.

Well, I did read the article - thanks for posting it. Doesn't mean I'm wrong...and here's why; Homosexual is the scientific term for "gay people". I've broken the word down to 2 sections "homo" and "sexual". This is also how you get "heterosexual" as well as "bisexual", "pansexual" and "asexual" - probably a few more. Now, it's not uncommon to hear people refer to themselves as "hetero" "bi" or "pan", so why the fear of the word "homo". Ok, according to your article, they don't like it. So, they choose to distance themselves from what is the "proper" term for the sexual preference and hijack the word "gay" - because, apparently being homosexual is fun. Sorry, I'm not confused and I wont be manipulated into helping them hide from the truth. It's just like "pride" - another word to help pump their egos and shelter from "proper" terminology. Scientist often speak of experiments or studies regarding homosexuality in animals and primates. The word "homosexual" is inarguable. And some people ,whether they like the term or not are homosexuals. Now, lets explore "trannies" - which you also take issue with. I say trannies because they choose the word "trans" and in proper terms "trans" is acceptable. Why "trannies" you ask? Trans can mean different things - Transgender, Transsexual, Transvestite, Transitioning, Transman, TransWoman. Now, using "proper english" Transes is not proper plurality. Admittedly, tranny might not be the proper plural usage either, but it's not derogatory and it does roll off the tongue better than transes. So, until trannies change their name to "joyful beings" or some other ridiculous name, I'll use it. So, for Argus and his Paki statement - no, Paki is not the same. First off Pakistan is a proper name and secondly, Homosexual is a combination of two words and is a noun. It's perfectly acceptable to use it in a shortened version.

I read the article...it was gay!

OK, If the prefix "hetero" as in heterosexual (meaning "different") is not derogatory, then simple logic tells us that the prefix "homo" as in homosexual (meaning "same") is not derogatory either. I can't believe the things that need explaining to you!

Do you find the word "hetero" derogatory?

Maybe, but it really depends on which group you belong to.

Homo is not anymore derogatory than hetero - is it? We have a thread called "hetero pride", I'd hate to think our mods are allowing derogatory terms right there in thread titles.

Loving and respecting the trannies has nothing to do with not wanting them in the military. This issue has been going on since before Trump, it just so happens that unlike Obama, he is listening the majority over the minority. BTW - When it comes to the military, transgender is not the same as gays in the military. He hasn't said anything about the homos.

Well, it seems that Trump has been listening to his generals and also a lot of people in the military. Seems better than a CIC that ignores his military. The Generals/Admirals don't want transgenders and neither do the men and women serving. This isn't a social justice experiment, the soliders shouldn't have to endure mandatory "sensativity" training to learn how to be accepting of some transgender. The military is made up of smaller groups that go out and kill people. Yes, that's what they do - Kill people. If that group has some weak links, it becomes a major problem for everybody.

C'mon, we all know how this will be used and abused by employers, police, doctors and gov't, probably by financiers too. People are running full tilt into giving away their freedom already. Every millennial is too stupid to see the writing on the wall, they'll easily buy into it - probably demand it. Parents will have their kids chipped because of "abduction" soon enough. Wives will track husbands. Glad i'm not living in the millennial age.

And I think they will. I don't see any argument for or against incest that couldn't be made of gay marriage or gay sex. As for pedophillia, once a court determines that a child is old enough to choose their sexual identity, than that same argument can be waged to show that that same person can and should be able to have sex - again, the arguments are similar, so why not? It's pretty hypocritical to tell a 12YO that they know enough about sexuality, their feelings and their body to change their gender, yet still tell them that they're too young to know about or engage in sexual activity. Sooner or later, some messed up parent will fight for their 11 or 12YO's right to have sex...and win. Yeah, it'll happen.

Because Trudeau isn't worried about exposing Harper - Duh....FFS, try using some reading comprehension.

The charges are not about child abuse or underage sex/statutory rape as far as I know. What was it you people said in regards to Khadr, that we should focus on what the case is about, not what we think may have happened? Anyway, I see no reason why polygamy is illegal. In this day and age, I thought one could marry whomever they wanted. P.S - I'm surprised that Dialamah is against it though, must be race related....or maybe it's just the religion that she's against.