The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[High_Gravity]

i'm curious. was bin laden killed by gay or straight troops?

Neither, they were bisexual.

 

[Montrovant]

Montrovant, I've read your reply with great interest. I was surprised to see that you made my point for me. You provide the references to gays in positions of power preying on their subordinates. The harmful activities of gay clergy was a good reference to cite. It clearly illustrates what happens when gays ascend in stature and become "trusted" authority figures. Thank you.

Unfortunately, you still seem to feel that the sexual deviance of gays is validated by the nefarious activities of heterosexual deviants. Irregardless of sexual preference sexual deviance is never acceptable. It is like say that just because Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks it isn't OK that the rest of us rob banks too. You say that you've served, and therefore should know that all deviance is vigorously prosecuted by the USMJ.

The fact that you served as an undeclared deviant lets us know that not all deviants were ferreted out. It was fortunate that DADT mandated that you remain very discreet about your deviant behavior. This mandate protected those around you.

You seem to have read with great interest but not great comprehension. When did I say I have served? I have never been part of the military and have never claimed such.

I feel that the deviance of gays needs no validation, neither does the deviance of heterosexuals. As long as any sexual proclivities involve consenting adults, validation is not needed. You, on the other hand, have stated that sexual deviants should not allow to serve, but have neglected to supply a clear definition of what you mean by the term. You seem to allow heterosexuals a pass by not calling for any heterosexual deviants to be denied the chance to serve.

I discussed the abuses of clergy because YOU brought it up. Further, I questioned whether such abuses could be used as evidence of tendencies of all homosexuals. Once again, you read with interest but little comprehension, seeing what you want to see.

You also failed to address my points about other nations which allow gays in their militaries (although you've avoided that or brushed it off as somehow irrelevant before, so that isn't a surprise), my question about how adult clergy abusing children translates to the military, and how gays are going to control the system if they are poor soldiers.

So you have replied to my post by claiming I said things I did not, implying I brought up something that you in fact brought up, and ignoring a number of my questions. Pretty damn unsatisfactory.

The fact that you haven't served is interesting. Every deviant that has responded to this thread has presented a questionable, long, and distinguished military resume. I incorrectly lumped you into this category. However, this fact remains self evident. Since you haven't served you don't have a frame of reference from which to argue. If you had served you would know that things are very different in a squad bay as opposed to your local pub. So in this case you really don't know what you're talking about.

You've asked to see the history that clearly shows that gays prey on the weakest members of society. To this I can only ask, what planet have you been living on? It is hard to look in a newspaper, or watch the evening news with out seeing documented evidence of deviant predation. If you aren't aware of these issues then maybe you're to naive to participate in this discussion.

I would also like to make one other point very clear to you. I've discussed this and the issues of gays serving openly in other countries military's through out this thread. For the answer on my views of gays serving in other countries military's go back and read my replies posted earlier. If you have specific questions I'll be happy to answer them for you.

Now let me make my point of view on sexual deviance very clear. Irregardless of which side of the aisle that it comes from sexual deviance is never OK. Both heterosexual, and homosexual deviants are bad people. Deviants hurt people and negatively impact peoples lives. They have no place in the United States Military. Their presence will only diminish combat readiness, and seriously erode a units esprit de corp.

Since you haven't served you probably weren't aware that heterosexual deviants aren't welcome in the United States Military. These people along with homosexual deviants have been prosecuted with great vigor.

Unfortunately DADT is dead. Fortunately Obama, will be a one term President. After the election of 2012 the new, competent, CinC will be able to repair the damage that the democratic party has wreaked on the US Military. Happy days will be here again.

I hope I am not so arrogant as to assume I have as great an understanding of the military and the life serving entails as someone who has or is a soldier. I further hope I have not given the impression that I think I do.

I consider fears about the effect on morale, depending on their basis, valid. I am not saying I agree with them necessarily, but I can certainly understand worrying that allowing gays to serve openly will cause some strife.

I asked for specifics concerning your use of the term sexual deviants for a (IMO) good reason, not just as some goad to try and 'catch you out' in some non-PC response. Your point about the military vigorously prosecuting heterosexual deviants furthers that reason. Without knowing what you consider a sexual deviant, I and others cannot know if you are consistent in your arguments. You say sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve, but other than gays, we don't know what that means. Now there is the further question of what the military considers sexual deviants if they are prosecuting them vigorously. What does the military consider unacceptable sexual deviance? What, specifically, were these soldiers prosecuted for? Was it for sexual acts done in private, was it for talking about said acts, was it for fraternization in the chain of command, etc.? I realize that, in your mind, it may seem obvious and clear what constitutes sexual deviance, but different people will have different definitions of what that means.

If you take a dictionary definition of deviant, departing from the norm, and apply it to your criteria, I imagine a large majority of soldiers would not be allowed to serve. Most people have some sort of fetish, or fantasy, or desire, or practice which departs from the norm to some extent. Some are certainly more extreme, but even something as simple as dirty talk during sex could be considered sexually deviant.

You say that you can hardly read a newspaper or watch the news without seeing some example of gay predation. I read my news online, so perhaps there is a disconnect between what is posted on online news sites and newspapers and television, but I think that is unlikely. Rather, I think you are wrong that examples of gay predation are so prevalent. Certainly some gays prey on the weak. That's part of human nature and something not limited in any way to homosexuals. More importantly, I have not seen compelling evidence that homosexuals are any more prone to such behavior than heterosexuals. I expect this is a point we are never going to agree on.

Let me finish by saying that I think most of my questions and arguments with you are based on what you have posted rather than any knowledge or lack thereof I have of life in the military. You have made various statements which I feel lack clarity and/or evidence. Whether or not I have served is immaterial when it comes to you being more exact in your arguments or asking you to provide evidence of a claim. You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone, but as there are others on here who also claim military background and disagree with you, I don't think you would consider it reasonable for me to just accept your opinions because you have served and I have not. Perhaps if every military member in the thread agreed on a point about military life I should accept it, but that has not been the case in our discussion. I don't have to have served to realize things are different in a squad bay than in my local pub (and that was certainly an odd turn of phrase, was it intended as a subtle insult?), but neither do I assume you know everything there is to know about military life. Your experiences may differ from others based on branch, rank, location, time, personality, and who knows how many other factors. There are things I will not know, having not experienced them first-hand, but that doesn't automatically invalidate any opinion I hold about the military.

 

[Spoonman]

You seem to have read with great interest but not great comprehension. When did I say I have served? I have never been part of the military and have never claimed such.

I feel that the deviance of gays needs no validation, neither does the deviance of heterosexuals. As long as any sexual proclivities involve consenting adults, validation is not needed. You, on the other hand, have stated that sexual deviants should not allow to serve, but have neglected to supply a clear definition of what you mean by the term. You seem to allow heterosexuals a pass by not calling for any heterosexual deviants to be denied the chance to serve.

I discussed the abuses of clergy because YOU brought it up. Further, I questioned whether such abuses could be used as evidence of tendencies of all homosexuals. Once again, you read with interest but little comprehension, seeing what you want to see.

You also failed to address my points about other nations which allow gays in their militaries (although you've avoided that or brushed it off as somehow irrelevant before, so that isn't a surprise), my question about how adult clergy abusing children translates to the military, and how gays are going to control the system if they are poor soldiers.

So you have replied to my post by claiming I said things I did not, implying I brought up something that you in fact brought up, and ignoring a number of my questions. Pretty damn unsatisfactory.

The fact that you haven't served is interesting. Every deviant that has responded to this thread has presented a questionable, long, and distinguished military resume. I incorrectly lumped you into this category. However, this fact remains self evident. Since you haven't served you don't have a frame of reference from which to argue. If you had served you would know that things are very different in a squad bay as opposed to your local pub. So in this case you really don't know what you're talking about.

You've asked to see the history that clearly shows that gays prey on the weakest members of society. To this I can only ask, what planet have you been living on? It is hard to look in a newspaper, or watch the evening news with out seeing documented evidence of deviant predation. If you aren't aware of these issues then maybe you're to naive to participate in this discussion.

I would also like to make one other point very clear to you. I've discussed this and the issues of gays serving openly in other countries military's through out this thread. For the answer on my views of gays serving in other countries military's go back and read my replies posted earlier. If you have specific questions I'll be happy to answer them for you.

Now let me make my point of view on sexual deviance very clear. Irregardless of which side of the aisle that it comes from sexual deviance is never OK. Both heterosexual, and homosexual deviants are bad people. Deviants hurt people and negatively impact peoples lives. They have no place in the United States Military. Their presence will only diminish combat readiness, and seriously erode a units esprit de corp.

Since you haven't served you probably weren't aware that heterosexual deviants aren't welcome in the United States Military. These people along with homosexual deviants have been prosecuted with great vigor.

Unfortunately DADT is dead. Fortunately Obama, will be a one term President. After the election of 2012 the new, competent, CinC will be able to repair the damage that the democratic party has wreaked on the US Military. Happy days will be here again.

I hope I am not so arrogant as to assume I have as great an understanding of the military and the life serving entails as someone who has or is a soldier. I further hope I have not given the impression that I think I do.

I consider fears about the effect on morale, depending on their basis, valid. I am not saying I agree with them necessarily, but I can certainly understand worrying that allowing gays to serve openly will cause some strife.

I asked for specifics concerning your use of the term sexual deviants for a (IMO) good reason, not just as some goad to try and 'catch you out' in some non-PC response. Your point about the military vigorously prosecuting heterosexual deviants furthers that reason. Without knowing what you consider a sexual deviant, I and others cannot know if you are consistent in your arguments. You say sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve, but other than gays, we don't know what that means. Now there is the further question of what the military considers sexual deviants if they are prosecuting them vigorously. What does the military consider unacceptable sexual deviance? What, specifically, were these soldiers prosecuted for? Was it for sexual acts done in private, was it for talking about said acts, was it for fraternization in the chain of command, etc.? I realize that, in your mind, it may seem obvious and clear what constitutes sexual deviance, but different people will have different definitions of what that means.

If you take a dictionary definition of deviant, departing from the norm, and apply it to your criteria, I imagine a large majority of soldiers would not be allowed to serve. Most people have some sort of fetish, or fantasy, or desire, or practice which departs from the norm to some extent. Some are certainly more extreme, but even something as simple as dirty talk during sex could be considered sexually deviant.

You say that you can hardly read a newspaper or watch the news without seeing some example of gay predation. I read my news online, so perhaps there is a disconnect between what is posted on online news sites and newspapers and television, but I think that is unlikely. Rather, I think you are wrong that examples of gay predation are so prevalent. Certainly some gays prey on the weak. That's part of human nature and something not limited in any way to homosexuals. More importantly, I have not seen compelling evidence that homosexuals are any more prone to such behavior than heterosexuals. I expect this is a point we are never going to agree on.

Let me finish by saying that I think most of my questions and arguments with you are based on what you have posted rather than any knowledge or lack thereof I have of life in the military. You have made various statements which I feel lack clarity and/or evidence. Whether or not I have served is immaterial when it comes to you being more exact in your arguments or asking you to provide evidence of a claim. You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone, but as there are others on here who also claim military background and disagree with you, I don't think you would consider it reasonable for me to just accept your opinions because you have served and I have not. Perhaps if every military member in the thread agreed on a point about military life I should accept it, but that has not been the case in our discussion. I don't have to have served to realize things are different in a squad bay than in my local pub (and that was certainly an odd turn of phrase, was it intended as a subtle insult?), but neither do I assume you know everything there is to know about military life. Your experiences may differ from others based on branch, rank, location, time, personality, and who knows how many other factors. There are things I will not know, having not experienced them first-hand, but that doesn't automatically invalidate any opinion I hold about the military.

i've made 2000 posts here and i haven't typed that many words - in total

 

[Montrovant]

i've made 2000 posts here and i haven't typed that many words - in total

 

[Spoonman]

i've made 2000 posts here and i haven't typed that many words - in total

now that's more like it

 

[Gadawg73]

The Navy Seal that gave Bin Laden a 3rd eye just came out as gay.
Every one of the other Seals has resigned.

 

[yota5]

The Navy Seal that gave Bin Laden a 3rd eye just came out as gay.
Every one of the other Seals has resigned.

 

[yota5]

You seem to have read with great interest but not great comprehension. When did I say I have served? I have never been part of the military and have never claimed such.

I feel that the deviance of gays needs no validation, neither does the deviance of heterosexuals. As long as any sexual proclivities involve consenting adults, validation is not needed. You, on the other hand, have stated that sexual deviants should not allow to serve, but have neglected to supply a clear definition of what you mean by the term. You seem to allow heterosexuals a pass by not calling for any heterosexual deviants to be denied the chance to serve.

I discussed the abuses of clergy because YOU brought it up. Further, I questioned whether such abuses could be used as evidence of tendencies of all homosexuals. Once again, you read with interest but little comprehension, seeing what you want to see.

You also failed to address my points about other nations which allow gays in their militaries (although you've avoided that or brushed it off as somehow irrelevant before, so that isn't a surprise), my question about how adult clergy abusing children translates to the military, and how gays are going to control the system if they are poor soldiers.

So you have replied to my post by claiming I said things I did not, implying I brought up something that you in fact brought up, and ignoring a number of my questions. Pretty damn unsatisfactory.

The fact that you haven't served is interesting. Every deviant that has responded to this thread has presented a questionable, long, and distinguished military resume. I incorrectly lumped you into this category. However, this fact remains self evident. Since you haven't served you don't have a frame of reference from which to argue. If you had served you would know that things are very different in a squad bay as opposed to your local pub. So in this case you really don't know what you're talking about.

You've asked to see the history that clearly shows that gays prey on the weakest members of society. To this I can only ask, what planet have you been living on? It is hard to look in a newspaper, or watch the evening news with out seeing documented evidence of deviant predation. If you aren't aware of these issues then maybe you're to naive to participate in this discussion.

I would also like to make one other point very clear to you. I've discussed this and the issues of gays serving openly in other countries military's through out this thread. For the answer on my views of gays serving in other countries military's go back and read my replies posted earlier. If you have specific questions I'll be happy to answer them for you.

Now let me make my point of view on sexual deviance very clear. Irregardless of which side of the aisle that it comes from sexual deviance is never OK. Both heterosexual, and homosexual deviants are bad people. Deviants hurt people and negatively impact peoples lives. They have no place in the United States Military. Their presence will only diminish combat readiness, and seriously erode a units esprit de corp.

Since you haven't served you probably weren't aware that heterosexual deviants aren't welcome in the United States Military. These people along with homosexual deviants have been prosecuted with great vigor.

Unfortunately DADT is dead. Fortunately Obama, will be a one term President. After the election of 2012 the new, competent, CinC will be able to repair the damage that the democratic party has wreaked on the US Military. Happy days will be here again.

I hope I am not so arrogant as to assume I have as great an understanding of the military and the life serving entails as someone who has or is a soldier. I further hope I have not given the impression that I think I do.

I consider fears about the effect on morale, depending on their basis, valid. I am not saying I agree with them necessarily, but I can certainly understand worrying that allowing gays to serve openly will cause some strife.

I asked for specifics concerning your use of the term sexual deviants for a (IMO) good reason, not just as some goad to try and 'catch you out' in some non-PC response. Your point about the military vigorously prosecuting heterosexual deviants furthers that reason. Without knowing what you consider a sexual deviant, I and others cannot know if you are consistent in your arguments. You say sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve, but other than gays, we don't know what that means. Now there is the further question of what the military considers sexual deviants if they are prosecuting them vigorously. What does the military consider unacceptable sexual deviance? What, specifically, were these soldiers prosecuted for? Was it for sexual acts done in private, was it for talking about said acts, was it for fraternization in the chain of command, etc.? I realize that, in your mind, it may seem obvious and clear what constitutes sexual deviance, but different people will have different definitions of what that means.

If you take a dictionary definition of deviant, departing from the norm, and apply it to your criteria, I imagine a large majority of soldiers would not be allowed to serve. Most people have some sort of fetish, or fantasy, or desire, or practice which departs from the norm to some extent. Some are certainly more extreme, but even something as simple as dirty talk during sex could be considered sexually deviant.

You say that you can hardly read a newspaper or watch the news without seeing some example of gay predation. I read my news online, so perhaps there is a disconnect between what is posted on online news sites and newspapers and television, but I think that is unlikely. Rather, I think you are wrong that examples of gay predation are so prevalent. Certainly some gays prey on the weak. That's part of human nature and something not limited in any way to homosexuals. More importantly, I have not seen compelling evidence that homosexuals are any more prone to such behavior than heterosexuals. I expect this is a point we are never going to agree on.

Let me finish by saying that I think most of my questions and arguments with you are based on what you have posted rather than any knowledge or lack thereof I have of life in the military. You have made various statements which I feel lack clarity and/or evidence. Whether or not I have served is immaterial when it comes to you being more exact in your arguments or asking you to provide evidence of a claim. You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone, but as there are others on here who also claim military background and disagree with you, I don't think you would consider it reasonable for me to just accept your opinions because you have served and I have not. Perhaps if every military member in the thread agreed on a point about military life I should accept it, but that has not been the case in our discussion. I don't have to have served to realize things are different in a squad bay than in my local pub (and that was certainly an odd turn of phrase, was it intended as a subtle insult?), but neither do I assume you know everything there is to know about military life. Your experiences may differ from others based on branch, rank, location, time, personality, and who knows how many other factors. There are things I will not know, having not experienced them first-hand, but that doesn't automatically invalidate any opinion I hold about the military.

Montrovant, the fact that you've never served is very material. You don't have a frame of reference from which to base your argument. That is my opinion, and it is a fact. You are right on one aspect though. Serving in combat arms does give one a fairly uncompromising out look on life.

Gay service members serve in the shadows. They can't reveal their true sexual proclivity. If they do they are prosecuted under the UCMJ, and discharged. I feel that this has inhibited their negative impact on their units. Now those restrictions have been removed, and all of us will be able to see how the gay community handles their new found freedom. It shouldn't surprise you that their opinions would differ from mine.

The military has always vigorously prosecuted sexual deviance. As you've stated deviance is a departure from the norm. The military doesn't view kinky sex between consenting males, and females deviant. The UCMJ views gay sex as a crime, and deviant. Any sexual assault is both a crime and deviant. Child pornography is both a crime and deviant. This list goes on and on.

Maybe the enclosed URL will clarify this issue for you. You will note that deviance occupies both the heterosexual, and the homosexual camps. But I have a feeling that you already knew the answer to your question.

My my son-in-law is a detective. My daughter is a deputy sheriff. They too have first hand knowledge of this subject, and the consequences. That also colors my view point.

As an American you have a right to your opinion. I have the same right. It appears that we'll have to respectively agree to disagree.

Sex crimes Archives - True Crime Report

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............

We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship. guess who came out to assist? It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.

Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?

She was sent, because she was the best.

BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?

 

[Spoonman]

Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............

We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship. guess who came out to assist? It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.

Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?

She was sent, because she was the best.

BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?

so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal. why should we listen to anythng you have to say?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............

We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship. guess who came out to assist? It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.

Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?

She was sent, because she was the best.

BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?

so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal. why should we listen to anythng you have to say?

What the fuck do you know about the military again?

Oh yeah......nothing.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............

We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship. guess who came out to assist? It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.

Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?

She was sent, because she was the best.

BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?

so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal. why should we listen to anythng you have to say?

Didn't you get the memo? Liberals are now permitted to pick and choose what regulations and laws that they want to follow....

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............

We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship. guess who came out to assist? It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.

Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?

She was sent, because she was the best.

BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?

so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal. why should we listen to anythng you have to say?

Didn't you get the memo? Liberals are now permitted to pick and choose what regulations and laws that they want to follow....

Would have been more wrong to turn her in. Wanna know why? We were short handed and if she would have been sent back to the States, we would have had a serious problem with radio communications, as we'd been without someone for about 2 months and it was a serious strain on the comm department.

 

[slukasiewski]

Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............

We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship. guess who came out to assist? It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.

Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?

She was sent, because she was the best.

BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?

so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal. why should we listen to anythng you have to say?

What the fuck do you know about the military again?

Oh yeah......nothing.

You were the Ship's Clerk AKA the Captain's Asskisser. You probably didn't stand duty either. Fucking Admin Puke...

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............

We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship. guess who came out to assist? It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.

Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?

She was sent, because she was the best.

BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?

so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal. why should we listen to anythng you have to say?

Someone broke a rule!!! An admitted criminal!!!!

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey Yo Turd.........got news for you.............

We had a shortage of RM's onboard my ship. guess who came out to assist? It was a lesbian named Cindy who was the best on the East coast waterfront.

Wanna tell me again how much gays hurt the services?

She was sent, because she was the best.

BTW asshole..............wanna talk about the ID cards again?

so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal. why should we listen to anythng you have to say?

Didn't you get the memo? Liberals are now permitted to pick and choose what regulations and laws that they want to follow....

And conservatives never do that.

 

[High_Gravity]

Wer just repeating the same stuff over and over again in this thread now fellas.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yeah, I am going fishing and hunting next week. Need to start getting my gear together.

 

[High_Gravity]

Yeah, I am going fishing and hunting next week. Need to start getting my gear together.

Neat, I'll be guzzling 40s and spending all night at the club as usual.

 

[SFC Ollie]

so you broke the law and didn't report her? you are an admitted criminal. why should we listen to anythng you have to say?

Didn't you get the memo? Liberals are now permitted to pick and choose what regulations and laws that they want to follow....

And conservatives never do that.

Of course they do. Chances are we have all at least bent a regulation at one time or another. But to flaunt it?