Gays in the millitary?? No fair!!

[Father Time]

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are not the same so they can never be seen as equals, if homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals so are all the sexual deviants. You can't show any evidence where faggots openly serving is going to help the military. The benefit is that troops don't have to hear faggots openly stating they're faggots, especially when they do want to hear it most likely.

So since blacks and whites are not the same do you support them not being seen as equals as well?

Evidence has been posted that gays can provide services to the military such as say Arab translator, no one has posted evidence that saying they're gay would effect their service.

Blacks and whites are humans being with different skin colors due to adaptations to environment which is natural, they don't differ in terms of actions, heterosexuals can reproduce faggots cannot, name one that blacks and whites have no done.

But they still are not the same so according to your logic they shouldn't be treated equally.

And do you treat straights that can't have children the same way you treat gays?

 

[Father Time]

If thats so why do you supports faggots openly stating they're fags in uniform? Why can't it be kept to themselves while they do their duty? Why is it necessary for them to openly say they're faggots?

Why was it necessary to integrate blacks?

Why is it necessary to concoct straw men?

The Bass already posted the reason to many times, blacks were integrated into all white units because whites units were rapidly losing people and didn't have enough reinforcements on hand immediately. Now stop comparing faggots to blacks when there is no comparison.

I'm not comparing them I'm using your logic and applying it to something else.

Also this is the first I heard of white units rapidly losing people, you have a source for that one?

 

[Father Time]

So if in a company of 300 men, there is one Gay who comes out, and 5 seasoned veterans find that his lifestyle and choices are so revolting to them that they can no longer serve, then this is a good thing? I don't buy it.

Yes it would be a good thing. The military, like any corporation or large entity relies primarily on people. Not objects. Bigots resigning help improve the human quality of the Units and nobody has irreplaceable skills so let the bigots leave because they cause more discord than the existence of gays themselves. Soldiers relying on each other is not about sexual orientation but character and honor. Frankly, I'd be a lot less confident of being in a Unit with bigots because in a firefight they could fail to do their duty out of bigotry and while failing, allow and/or cause harm to other Troops.

Troop morale is not built around who is fucking who. It's built around Americans who understand defending the Constitution cannot be successfully done by promoting the very discrimination the Constitution was designed to eradicate.

You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.

Yet somehow gays being driven out for no good reason is a good thing if it can promote your anti-gay agenda.

Besides as it is these hypothetical know that they might all ready be working with gays, so I doubt it bothers them THAT much.

 

[CurveLight]

You're an idiot if you think people leaving the military, good soldiers who do great work that is, is a good thing just so you can promote your gay agenda.

When people like you call me an idiot I'm confident the sails are pointed in the correct direction.

No, you're clearly in the damn wrong, whatever people do in the bedroom sexually does not need to get politicized and thats what faggots have down, politicized their sexual lifestyle for gain and to promote its acceptance. gays have all the rights that every American has that doesn't politicized their sexual lifestyle, no one else is doing it except for them.

Shoonicky bang bang! Are you serious? Who in the hell do you think is responsible for "politicizing" sexual orientations? Was it gays who said:

"We're gay so please discriminate as much as possible!"

Who the fuck do you think is responsible for DADT? You! Your camp is so damn busy peeking your eyes into everyone's bedrooms that you fail to realize the world is bigger than four walls and orgasms.

You are using sexual activity to justify your bigotry and using political power to punish those whom engage in consensual activity you personally disapprove of. Then you say sexuality should not be "politicized?" You're fucking sick.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

So since blacks and whites are not the same do you support them not being seen as equals as well?

Evidence has been posted that gays can provide services to the military such as say Arab translator, no one has posted evidence that saying they're gay would effect their service.

Blacks and whites are humans being with different skin colors due to adaptations to environment which is natural, they don't differ in terms of actions, heterosexuals can reproduce faggots cannot, name one that blacks and whites have no done.

But they still are not the same so according to your logic they shouldn't be treated equally.

And do you treat straights that can't have children the same way you treat gays?

Skin colors due to adaptation and heredity are not comparable to voluntary sexual behaviors, homosexuality is not comparable to skin color ethnicity.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

When people like you call me an idiot I'm confident the sails are pointed in the correct direction.

No, you're clearly in the damn wrong, whatever people do in the bedroom sexually does not need to get politicized and thats what faggots have down, politicized their sexual lifestyle for gain and to promote its acceptance. gays have all the rights that every American has that doesn't politicized their sexual lifestyle, no one else is doing it except for them.

Shoonicky bang bang! Are you serious? Who in the hell do you think is responsible for "politicizing" sexual orientations? Was it gays who said:

"We're gay so please discriminate as much as possible!"

Who the fuck do you think is responsible for DADT? You! Your camp is so damn busy peeking your eyes into everyone's bedrooms that you fail to realize the world is bigger than four walls and orgasms.

You are using sexual activity to justify your bigotry and using political power to punish those whom engage in consensual activity you personally disapprove of. Then you say sexuality should not be "politicized?" You're fucking sick.

Faggots are politicizing their sexual behavior, it was gays who politicized their deviant sexual behavior in order to openly live it while in uniform. Voluntary sexual acts between two adults should not legislated and politicized for gain.

 

[CurveLight]

No, you're clearly in the damn wrong, whatever people do in the bedroom sexually does not need to get politicized and thats what faggots have down, politicized their sexual lifestyle for gain and to promote its acceptance. gays have all the rights that every American has that doesn't politicized their sexual lifestyle, no one else is doing it except for them.

Shoonicky bang bang! Are you serious? Who in the hell do you think is responsible for "politicizing" sexual orientations? Was it gays who said:

"We're gay so please discriminate as much as possible!"

Who the fuck do you think is responsible for DADT? You! Your camp is so damn busy peeking your eyes into everyone's bedrooms that you fail to realize the world is bigger than four walls and orgasms.

You are using sexual activity to justify your bigotry and using political power to punish those whom engage in consensual activity you personally disapprove of. Then you say sexuality should not be "politicized?" You're fucking sick.

Faggots are politicizing their sexual behavior, it was gays who politicized their deviant sexual behavior in order to openly live it while in uniform. Voluntary sexual acts between two adults should not legislated and politicized for gain.

Bigshit geysers! Look at the last sentence. If voluntary sexual acts should not be legislated or politicized for gain then why in the fuck do you scream for legislation based on:

Voluntary sexual acts.

??????????

The greatest evidence witnessing the stoopidity of bigotry is talking with bigots.

 

[manu1959]

Never served eh?

Do a 1 year tour in Iraq and get back to me then.

so unless one has served in the military one can not have an opinion about the military....

is that the rule....

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Shoonicky bang bang! Are you serious? Who in the hell do you think is responsible for "politicizing" sexual orientations? Was it gays who said:

"We're gay so please discriminate as much as possible!"

Who the fuck do you think is responsible for DADT? You! Your camp is so damn busy peeking your eyes into everyone's bedrooms that you fail to realize the world is bigger than four walls and orgasms.

You are using sexual activity to justify your bigotry and using political power to punish those whom engage in consensual activity you personally disapprove of. Then you say sexuality should not be "politicized?" You're fucking sick.

Faggots are politicizing their sexual behavior, it was gays who politicized their deviant sexual behavior in order to openly live it while in uniform. Voluntary sexual acts between two adults should not legislated and politicized for gain.

Bigshit geysers! Look at the last sentence. If voluntary sexual acts should not be legislated or politicized for gain then why in the fuck do you scream for legislation based on:

Voluntary sexual acts.

??????????

The greatest evidence witnessing the stoopidity of bigotry is talking with bigots.

The Bass is exactly anti against that, the Bass is the resistance against such politicizing, faggots started now the Bass must finish.

 

[maineman]

Never served eh?

Do a 1 year tour in Iraq and get back to me then.

so unless one has served in the military one can not have an opinion about the military....

is that the rule....

of course you can have an opinion.... it's just not an INFORMED one.

 

[CurveLight]

Never served eh?

Do a 1 year tour in Iraq and get back to me then.

so unless one has served in the military one can not have an opinion about the military....

is that the rule....

of course you can have an opinion.... it's just not an INFORMED one.

That's like claiming unless you have been a murder victim you cannot have an informed opinion about murder.

 

[maineman]

so unless one has served in the military one can not have an opinion about the military....

is that the rule....

of course you can have an opinion.... it's just not an INFORMED one.

That's like claiming unless you have been a murder victim you cannot have an informed opinion about murder.

no it's not... it's like stating that, unless you are a brain surgeon, you really can't talk, with any level of understanding, about the nuances of brain surgery. NOBODY knows what it's like to be in the military until they've actually been there.

 

[Father Time]

Blacks and whites are humans being with different skin colors due to adaptations to environment which is natural, they don't differ in terms of actions, heterosexuals can reproduce faggots cannot, name one that blacks and whites have no done.

But they still are not the same so according to your logic they shouldn't be treated equally.

And do you treat straights that can't have children the same way you treat gays?

Skin colors due to adaptation and heredity are not comparable to voluntary sexual behaviors, homosexuality is not comparable to skin color ethnicity.

You said if they're different they should be treated differently. Blacks are different than whites even if it is through genes, so by your logic they should be treated differently.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I was talking about homosexuals/homosexuality...that the word "normal" is relative, not the extreme situations in battle. There is NO SUCH THING as "normal." Normal is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, and SFC, to reply to your red: Yes, ethics can be situational and are situational at times.

You can have integrity and still apply your ethics and morals to certain situations.

Homosexuality isn't "normal" by any stretch of your imagination. There is no way one can place homosexuality on the same equal level as heterosexuality.

You're still gay or straight even if you never act on your desires in ANY WAY a single time in your life.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey........if the Vatican can have a homosexual prostitution ring, I think it would be okay to let gays serve openly.

At least, out in the open, people are honest and better behaved about it.

 

[csbarry]

Those individuals you mentioned may want to eliminate it, but then again, it's not about them. It's about what the Nation wants. Put it on the ballot and the policy remains in effect.

bullshit. we live in a representative democracy. We elect our congressmen and our senators and our president and task THEM with running this country. We do NOT place everything out to referendum. It IS the commander-in-chief's responsibility to set the policies of our military. If you don't LIKE the policies that he sets, you can wait for the next presidential election and then try and replace him with someone more to your liking.

Did you even TAKE civics?

As a matter of fact, I have. I know how our government is suppose to work, but it doesn't because our representatives do as they wish and not as we ask. This is suppose to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; not a self important group of individuals in Washington that look to take care of themselves. I have no problem in believing that the vast majority of Americans would prefer to see DADT remain in effect permanently, and further, that gay relationships not be officially recognized in the military or the civilian community.

 

[csbarry]

that's kind of an uphill swim, isn't it? The president, SECDEF and CJCS all want to eliminate it.

Those individuals you mentioned may want to eliminate it, but then again, it's not about them. It's about what the Nation wants. Put it on the ballot and the policy remains in effect.

You know, that may have some truth to it, but sadly, it doesn't.

I'm gonna start calling you Crazy Shit Barry (or fairy, depending).

As far as putting it on a ballot? Well, interestingly enough, I just watched an interview with Barry Levin (you know, the guy that just took over the chairmanship of Ways and Means), and when he was asked about the fucked up policy of DADT, he stated that everyone said (including McStupid), there should be a 1 year study for the policy.

He also stated that during that 1 year policy, when looking to see if it should be rescinded or not, NOBODY should be discharged during that time for being gay. Other things such as discipline, EAOS and all the others? Business as usual, just no discharges for homosexuality during the study.

The bill is already working it's way through Congress.

Oh yeah........Mr. Levin? He supports getting rid of DADT.

Try again Cat Shit Fairy.

Come on, do you think what you call me, or who you quote matters to me? Don't flatter yourself. You're acting like a five year old that can't get its way; behave or I'll have to send you to bed without your supper.

 

[csbarry]

Hey........if the Vatican can have a homosexual prostitution ring, I think it would be okay to let gays serve openly.

At least, out in the open, people are honest and better behaved about it.

Another brilliant...NOT, comment from the peanut gallery.

 

[CurveLight]

Those individuals you mentioned may want to eliminate it, but then again, it's not about them. It's about what the Nation wants. Put it on the ballot and the policy remains in effect.

bullshit. we live in a representative democracy. We elect our congressmen and our senators and our president and task THEM with running this country. We do NOT place everything out to referendum. It IS the commander-in-chief's responsibility to set the policies of our military. If you don't LIKE the policies that he sets, you can wait for the next presidential election and then try and replace him with someone more to your liking.

Did you even TAKE civics?

As a matter of fact, I have. I know how our government is suppose to work, but it doesn't because our representatives do as they wish and not as we ask. This is suppose to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; not a self important group of individuals in Washington that look to take care of themselves. I have no problem in believing that the vast majority of Americans would prefer to see DADT remain in effect permanently, and further, that gay relationships not be officially recognized in the military or the civilian community.

Our government is not structured around the majority rules philosophy. It was set up specifically to prohibit such a structure.

 

[CurveLight]

of course you can have an opinion.... it's just not an INFORMED one.

That's like claiming unless you have been a murder victim you cannot have an informed opinion about murder.

no it's not... it's like stating that, unless you are a brain surgeon, you really can't talk, with any level of understanding, about the nuances of brain surgery. NOBODY knows what it's like to be in the military until they've actually been there.

So if someone spent five years studying brain surgery, was tutored by brain surgeons, and watched many operations they wouldn't be abe to intelligently discuss brain surgery unless they physically did it? There is legitimacy to your empirical claim but it's not nearly as cut dry as being stated. People who have never served can make their contributions to how the military is run. Ask Dick Cheney.