Gays in the millitary?? No fair!!

[Bass v 2.0]

Why? Simple.......sometimes in the military there are petty assholes who are looking to make someone else's life miserable, and one way that they can do that is to blow the whistle on someone who is gay.

If they were allowed to serve openly, that would disappear, and they wouldn't feel so much under the gun.

No one is blowing the whistle on faggots, they often do stupid stuff to out themselves so its their fault.

 

[amrchaos]

DADT will soon no longer exits

It came about as a "compromise" between ardent homophobes and libertarians during the Clinto administration to help bolster military morale among "sexually ambiguous" soldiers.


But in truth, there was a possible good that DADT gave to the millitary:::It made the gay soldier work even harder!!

Proof are the testimonies that many of the homosexual supporters posted in this thread. An example is this one

........... We are losing soldiers to a really fucked up policy, many of which are highly decorated as well as major league assets to the military.

Daniel Cho is one of them. He's one of only 500 Arabic speaking translators in the military. We are currently at war with Arabic speaking people

They kicked him out.

An Air Force pilot, who has several awards for bravery and valor, one of which is the DFC. He single handedly flew air support for a squad that was pinned down. He saved the lives of all those that made it out of that battle.

They want to kick him out.

...................................
Incidentally, almost all of the gay and lesbian people in the military are better than everyone else at their jobs, generally.

Wanna know why? Comes from an old Navy saying......."One aw shit will wipe out a thousand atta boys".

The gays make sure they've got at least 1001 atta boys. Why? They never know when the axe is gonna drop, and they want to make sure they will have enough juice to stay in.

I agree. Now ask, if we take away the "ax" will the gays work for a 1001 ata boys?? I say no!! The Ax does work.

Need more proof that DADT does benefit the millitary by producing rock hard Soldiers? This thread is littered with them!! In fact, in many of the arguments against DADT, they are fall short of the main objective for military policy:

Does this hurt the quality of the soldier produced and maintained by the Military??

Apparently the policy actually helps produce and maintain high quality soldiers in the military. Even the act of getting rid of one gay soldier helps focus and harden the other gay soldiers!! And a harden and well focused soldier is the best killing machine on any battlefied.

Don't you want America to have so many of these "killing machines" that we win battles almost by presence?? Of course you do!!

It seems that DADT turn a bunch of "sexual preference losers" into Rock Hard well focused Killing machines. That is a great big HOORAH for the US military!! Why end it??

Ok then let's have DADT apply to heteros as well, in fact if the army finds out you are anything but asexual they will throw you out.

How about the possible gay soldiers that DADT scares away? Did you consider that?

Face it your sex life does not determine your ability as a soldier so to use it to determine who stays is arbitrary and thus totally unnecessary.

First off--if DADT scares you away, what would happen when you confront a REAL enemy? Will the gay soldier play patty cake with them and make tea for the BIG BAD TERRORISTS If DADT was not in place?? Do you think that the military's job is to cuddle every person that joins it?? That is the job of the department of "kissing boo-boos and wiping noses" better known as the Department of Children Services!!

I do not think I need to remind you That "kissing boo-boos" is not the Militarys mission!!

The millitary needs some mettle to work with. You are asking way too much of recruit training when the recruits are still afraid of the Boogeyman!!

On the other hand, we have been presented with a great tool in DADT if it makes the Homosexual recruit reach for the sky before the CO can finish issuing the command!! I tell you, DADT is like super soldier serum--but you don't have to mix a damn thing to get the homosexuals Fighting mad!! That is the kind of policy the military needs!! A policy that turns a soldier into Hardened Soldiers on the first day they step onto the training fields.

Any more policies like this, then we may have to ask ourselves "What is the purpose of basic training?" Of course, the sooldier wil still need to know the commands and so forth, so I guess further policies will be on how to speed up the learning process!!


The more I think about it, the more I realize DADT is all right with me!! If we could only make it so the "sexual preference losers" will try for 2002 atta boys!! Now that would be an even meaner military!! Enemies would melt away on sight!! Keep it up, SPL's, or get the hell out the military for being gay!!

I can already see them on the go!! Hell, they were on the go before I issued the command!! What a concept!! DADT turns the Gay soldier into a hell raising soldier on the first day!! So I ask again, why change this policy!!

 

[Father Time]

The gay supporters are arguing in circles, unable to separate their emotional gay activism thats based on emotion as opposed to concentrating on what are the real facts to be considered, they seem to think that lifting DADT is going to be easy and everything after that is going to be ok, *WRONG*, it isn't that simple and as the military is finding out its going to be more difficult to undo it. A lot of things have to be considered and accounted, not just what the fags want, thats what the progays fail to realize, their logic is "Lets be all for the gay and lets the straights just adapt and suck it up".

Like what? The only thing you've ever come up with can be solved with simple shower curtains.

 

[Father Time]

Until opponents of DADT can show how allowing gays will have a positive benefit on the military, DADT should remain intact. We have a volunteer military, but don't think for a second they just want any ol' body who shows up. There are any number of policies in the military that could hinder you from ever joining or being kicked out that one could call arbitrary. At the end of the day, we need the best military we can get. Not the most socially progressive.

Ok being gay has absolutely no effect on their ability to serve, so under DADT we are firing perfectly good troops for no good reason. Therefore it's a terrible policy and we should get rid of it.

Since it has no effect on their work performance[mainly because they're not allowed to openly say they're fags, you dunce], why can't they just shut up and continue to serve without making their sexual practices public? They're putting their gay activism before duty to their country first which is wrong.

Are you really that stupid or are you just desperate? Telling their coworkers they are gay =gay activism? So me telling coworkers I am white = advocating white power.

The military is not adversely affected by DADT, there is no evidence of this, the only people affected adversely are fags because they can't openly say they fags, woooow, thats so damn adverse.

The evidence has been posted you just choose to ignore it and continue to spout off the same bullshit.

 

[Father Time]

DADT will soon no longer exits

It came about as a "compromise" between ardent homophobes and libertarians during the Clinto administration to help bolster military morale among "sexually ambiguous" soldiers.


But in truth, there was a possible good that DADT gave to the millitary:::It made the gay soldier work even harder!!

Proof are the testimonies that many of the homosexual supporters posted in this thread. An example is this one




I agree. Now ask, if we take away the "ax" will the gays work for a 1001 ata boys?? I say no!! The Ax does work.

Need more proof that DADT does benefit the millitary by producing rock hard Soldiers? This thread is littered with them!! In fact, in many of the arguments against DADT, they are fall short of the main objective for military policy:

Does this hurt the quality of the soldier produced and maintained by the Military??

Apparently the policy actually helps produce and maintain high quality soldiers in the military. Even the act of getting rid of one gay soldier helps focus and harden the other gay soldiers!! And a harden and well focused soldier is the best killing machine on any battlefied.

Don't you want America to have so many of these "killing machines" that we win battles almost by presence?? Of course you do!!

It seems that DADT turn a bunch of "sexual preference losers" into Rock Hard well focused Killing machines. That is a great big HOORAH for the US military!! Why end it??

Ok then let's have DADT apply to heteros as well, in fact if the army finds out you are anything but asexual they will throw you out.

How about the possible gay soldiers that DADT scares away? Did you consider that?

Face it your sex life does not determine your ability as a soldier so to use it to determine who stays is arbitrary and thus totally unnecessary.

First off--if DADT scares you away, what would happen when you confront a REAL enemy?

Not joining because you are likely to be fired based on some arbitrary stupid rules is not the same thing. Also if straight soldiers are afraid or uncomfortable with gays (which is what I keep hearing over and over) what happens when they confront a real enemy?

Will the gay soldier play patty cake with them and make tea for the BIG BAD TERRORISTS If DADT was not in place?? Do you think that the military's job is to cuddle every person that joins it?? That is the job of the department of "kissing boo-boos and wiping noses" better known as the Department of Children Services!!

I do not think I need to remind you That "kissing boo-boos" is not the Militarys mission!!

Which is why telling straight soldiers to suck it up, like they would have to IN ANY OTHER JOB, shouldn't be a big deal.

The millitary needs some mettle to work with. You are asking way too much of recruit training when the recruits are still afraid of the Boogeyman!!

You don't think being fired under DADT is a credible threat? Then why have it in the first place?

On the other hand, we have been presented with a great tool in DADT if it makes the Homosexual recruit reach for the sky before the CO can finish issuing the command!! I tell you, DADT is like super soldier serum--but you don't have to mix a damn thing to get the homosexuals Fighting mad!! That is the kind of policy the military needs!! A policy that turns a soldier into Hardened Soldiers on the first day they step onto the training fields.

So you advocate an unfair policy that puts extra burden on certain troops only because they are gay? There goes your plausible excuse of 'I don't dislike gays'. Although if you want better soldiers why not just up the requirements for all soldiers instead of discriminating against gays?

Also it doesn't matter how good of a soldier people are they would still be canned under DADT. So I would like evidence DADT actually accomplishes any of that.

The more I think about it, the more I realize DADT is all right with me!! If we could only make it so the "sexual preference losers" will try for 2002 atta boys!! Now that would be an even meaner military!! Enemies would melt away on sight!! Keep it up, SPL's, or get the hell out the military for being gay!!

I can already see them on the go!! Hell, they were on the go before I issued the command!! What a concept!! DADT turns the Gay soldier into a hell raising soldier on the first day!! So I ask again, why change this policy!!

Because it's unfair, you admitted it yourself.

But I see your point, let's force all black soldiers to have to do twice as much work as all other soldiers and if they can't or won't put up with bigoted treatment they will be canned for being black.

It would mean better soldiers (in theory) therefore things like fairness would not matter.

 

[maineman]

The pro-****** side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.

Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".

plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The facts are that the military is looking at rescinding DADT. And they do expect it to cause some problems. If they are going to study this for an entire year......Well they expect problems. And they do not know if there are solutions to those problems or not. And it doesn't matter what we say here, it is the Congress and the Military which will make this decision. God help them.

 

[Oscar Wao]

The pro-****** side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.

Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".

plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose.

The Afrocentric poster you are arguing with will use the "gays and blacks aren't dealing with the same stuff" argument.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The facts are that the military is looking at rescinding DADT. And they do expect it to cause some problems. If they are going to study this for an entire year......Well they expect problems. And they do not know if there are solutions to those problems or not. And it doesn't matter what we say here, it is the Congress and the Military which will make this decision. God help them.

Of course it's going to cause problems........everything new does.

In the Navy, the first time that we allowed women to serve on forward deployed ships, one of the first they chose was the USS PUGET SOUND. After a few months, it became known as the "USS PUBIC MOUND", and a few months after that, it was called "the Love Boat".

But now? We've got women serving on most forward deployed vessels, including warships that deploy into hazardous zones.

Listen......if you want to serve, serve. Just remember that you've got to follow the UCMJ, as well as the rules of your command.

Your sexuality and what you do off the work site? Shouldn't be anyones business UNTIL it starts to affect good order and discipline.

And........a lover's spat don't qualify. The Navy sees 'em all the time in the form of workplace romances.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The pro-****** side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.

Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".

plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose.

The Afrocentric poster you are arguing with will use the "gays and blacks aren't dealing with the same stuff" argument.

Blacks and faggots are not mutually th same nor can they be compared.

 

[Animal]

Moses said this.Do not outsmart God's people.It is written,"Thou shall not lie next to a mankind as with a womankind.Tha's abomination against your God'.Lev.18:22.In New Testament,St Paul who is a prisoner of Lord Jesus Christ wrote more condemnations in The Book of Romans 1:26-32 and gays are reprobate perverts who deserve Hell.

Are you really trying to use a Bible verse to justify ignoring OTHER Bible verses?

The accurate Bible is King James Version.

King James Bible- ironically commisiioned by a king who was most likely gay, and based on a very badly and inaccurately translated Greek bible.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The pro-****** side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.

Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".

plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose.

White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Are you really that stupid or are you just desperate? Telling their coworkers they are gay =gay activism? So me telling coworkers I am white = advocating white power.

The whole lift DADT is all about gay activism, why do fags *HAVE* to tell their coworkers that they're gay in the if what they do in privacy is no one's business anyways? You still have established no reason why gays should have to tell someone that they're faggots, what if people don't want to know?

The evidence has been posted you just choose to ignore it and continue to spout off the same bullshit.

There is absolutely no evidence that the military is affected by DADT, you haven't shown any proof for this, the truth is that most military members aren't fags, so how could it adversely affect the military? The whole movement against DADT is nothing more than gay activism and fags not wanting to keep their homosexuality to themselves. Most troops don't want to know about someone's homosexuality so why lobby to openly put it in someone's face?

 

[Father Time]

Are you really that stupid or are you just desperate? Telling their coworkers they are gay =gay activism? So me telling coworkers I am white = advocating white power.

The whole lift DADT is all about gay activism,

That's not what you said.

why do fags *HAVE* to tell their coworkers that they're gay in the if what they do in privacy is no one's business anyways? You still have established no reason why gays should have to tell someone that they're faggots, what if people don't want to know?

Why should they have to play by different rules, straights can tell people all they want about their sex life even if people don't want to hear it.

The evidence has been posted you just choose to ignore it and continue to spout off the same bullshit.

There is absolutely no evidence that the military is affected by DADT, you haven't shown any proof for this, the truth is that most military members aren't fags, so how could it adversely affect the military? The whole movement against DADT is nothing more than gay activism and fags not wanting to keep their homosexuality to themselves. Most troops don't want to know about someone's homosexuality so why lobby to openly put it in someone's face?

It's been posted before about the troops and translators the military has had to fire because of the pointless rule that is DADT. The whole DADT is about homophobia and serves absolutely no legit purpose.

 

[Father Time]

The pro-****** side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.

Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".

plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose.

White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.

It's perfectly comparable neither group gets to choose to belong to said group. Also said sex acts do not effect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.

 

[Father Time]

Now Bass I'll make it easy for you, what legitimate purpose does DADT serve anyway?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Now Bass I'll make it easy for you, what legitimate purpose does DADT serve anyway?

It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.

 

[Father Time]

Now Bass I'll make it easy for you, what legitimate purpose does DADT serve anyway?

It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.

But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The pro-****** side is still arguing with emotionalism than with actual facts. The Bass has served in the military as an officer and if the Bass was a commander he would have a hard time telling his troops that they're homophobic for feeling uncomfortable being in an open shower around a bunch faggots-er men who are attracted to other men. Most of those pushing the issue have no served in the military and or if they have are supporting lifting DADT because they want to say and do what the boss[Obama] wants to hear.

Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".

plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose.

White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.

Hey Bass Hole.....got news for you, CDR is the paygrade where a Naval Officer can command ships and submarines.

I think he knows more about leadership than some dipshit reservist O2 who stayed stateside to be safe from the war.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

It's perfectly comparable neither group gets to choose to belong to said group. Also said sex acts do not effect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.

Repeat, their is no comparison that can be made between blacks and faggots, faggots are defined by their sexual acts, blacks are not, please quit insulting black people by comparing us to faggots. Sexual acts are based on choice, a person can chose whether or not they want to have gay sex, blacks cannot chose whether to be black or not, its a BS comparison and you know it. Sex acts may not physically effect people from serving but they do have a dtreimental effect socially within the workplace. By your logic, people who screw animals should be allowed to openly serve as zoophilists, because hey, sex acts doesn't affect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.