If you don´t like exchanging opinions with people of my kind, you should not bother exchanging ideas in the first place. Save yourself from contradicting with yourself and stop hijacking this thread into your own alpha male territory where all opinions are subject to approval. This is supposed to be a free and democratic platform not a place where you can call people names at will. 

Anyone remember Saint Fergie recently sneaking around and  exposing the so  called miserable conditions in Turkish orphanages.

Well, she does not have to travel that far for her heroic conquests, anymore.  Followers of dear Frank Jakob are busy in similar institutions of Ireland, teaching young boys the pleasures of a civilised life. (Note: Rest othe time they probably teach the boys how to pray)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse

We should help deserving homosexuals all we can...YES !

We should let them survive under the rocks or within crevices, unnoticed.....NO !

Do not underestimate others in this forum.....most others here are at least three grades above your intellectual quality.

The system may allow you to contribute your half cooked ideas, but do not extend yourself making rules or suggestions for others.

I tend to think conscientious objectors must not necessarily be cowards. There are different opinions and different measures of decency. As explained before, I am not a conscientious objector myself. Nevertheless, if people become conscientious objectors because of their beliefs or ideologies then we should at least listen to them. They can still be recruited if constitutionally military service must be compulsory and can be assigned supportive duties that don´t involve killing people. This may serve a  middle point for them. I understand there will be radical minds who will think even a supportive role will be a violation of their beliefs but when we look at the matter from the other angle, if other people must die for their countries they must do something in return. In other words, there must be a comprimize.

Interpreting is not your skill, is it? ´We´ as in you and me, thát made me say ´yikes´.

I really don´t think that is what vineyards was saying at all.  The concept of conscientious objector is a valid one.  Of course, one must be questioned to verify the reality of the objection, rather than it just being cowardice, or one of not wanting to be bothered.  It’s an issue now with the Iraq war and the conflict in Afghanistan.  Many are morally against the methods used in this conflict. 

In fact the Nuremberg trials made questioning military commands and methods mandatory. No more can anyone say “I was just following orders”. " The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr were brave men who sacrificed their lives for causes…causes that won. Neither man was a coward.  Probably if the Palestinians adopted such methods the cause they advocate would have a much better chance at success.

As I´m not very knowledgable about Turkish laws regarding military service, I´m wondering if there were any other options for this coach other than declaring himself homosexual?

 Hmmm....interesting idea?  The fact of the matter is it looks like the "third sex" is here now. 

DES Daughters

Deformed uteruses, fallopian tubes, and ovaries
Lowered egg production
Higher rates of infertility, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and premature babies
Higher rates of endometriosis, uterine tumors, breast tumors, and pituitary tumors
Increased frequency of ovarian cysts and abnormal follicles  Immune system problems
Abnormal glucose tolerance and glucose utilization
Abnormal development of gender-specific sexual behavior in DES offspring (feminized males and masculinized females), suggesting that DES caused abnormal sex differentiation during fetal development

DES Sons

Increased genital defects, undescended testicles, and stunted testicles and penises
Low sperm counts, abnormal sperm, and reduced fertility
Higher rates of testicular cancer at earlier ages
Immune system problems
Abnormal glucose tolerance and glucose utilization
Abnormal development of male sexual behavior

Timeline of Synthetic Endocrine Disruptors (POPs)

1929: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are developed
1930s: “Nerve gases” is developed in Germany and later used by the Nazis in WWII; these later became the basis for pesticides
1938: DDT is first synthesized and manufactured. DES, the first synthetic estrogenic compound, is produced
1940—1945: First widespread use of synthetic chemicals worldwide and widespread exposure to living organisms
1940s—1950s: First human generation exposed to synthetic chemicals in infancy
1940s—1970s: DES is in widespread use during pregnancy; first human generations are born after being exposed to synthetic estrogenic chemicals, pesticides, and other industrial pollutants (POPS) in the womb
1970s—2000: Health problems with DES children become manifest
1970s—1990s: First human generation to have been exposed to POPs in the womb is now reaching reproductive age when hormone disruptions become more pronounced and noticeable
2000: Second generation DES sons and daughters are now old enough for adverse health effects to be manifest

source

True. There is also the possibility that a person could chose not to get involved in any armed conflict just because it contradicts with his/her belief or opinion. In the case of Muhammad Ali, there are other factors which he explained by saying that he had no interest whatsoever in taking part in the wars of the Christian community his being a Muslim who would only answer a call to arms issued by Muslim leaders in line with the teachings of Quran.  That would be a holy war or jihad which is the Islamic version of crusade.

Today by definition most industrialized societies are run by secular regimes requiring worldly and religious affairs to be seperated. In other words, while it sounds logical to open a window for different beliefs, it seems rather problematic to accord legislation to the specific needs of individual religions in certain controversial matters like military service.  The cause of Muhammed Ali therefore a controversial one too. True, he is a conscientious objector but he also states he would answer a religious call to  war and how much does that violate his responsibilities as a citizen is a matter of curious debate.

On the other hand, if a nation attacks other nations by intentionally placing themselves on the side of a certain religion and demonizes other religion(s) how secular can it be?  For example,  the EU describes itself as a community with shared values. It goes without saying that many of those are Christian values. That is why the EU is often referred to as a  Christian club. That also points out to the wide spread public preference among European countries about staying together as a Christian society.

Other aspects of his decision as laid out in the paragraph I quoted from your reply are quite applausable since his stance requires both sacrifice and bravery. In the end, he loses his fighting license, a few golden years in his cintillating career which was spent in stead  facing  fierce criticism. It takes being in his shoes to understand the difficulty and complexity of that decision.

Interesting, today he probably would have been sent to Guantanamo.

Actually, at least in the US, there are many religions who are known as conscientious objectors.  The Quakers, Mennonites, Amish are groups of Peace Churchs in particular that are famous for this issue.

 "War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today."

– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to a Navy friend

In 1948, the issue of the right to “conscience” was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.

The issue of conscientious objectors has become a hot topic lately, as many are concerned about the return of the military draft.

More here:

I was once warned about the incorrect use of words describing races.

Wow, you are fluent in French aren´t you?