Gays in the millitary?? No fair!!

[Bass v 2.0]

Charley you must be so gay.

What else would explain your obsession with homosexuality?

The Bass isn't obsessed with homosexuality, he's just stating the facts.

0 for 2 would you like to try again?

Animals have been observed to be homosexual and since there's no way to artificially make animals do so, it's natural.

No, homosexuality is not natural and no the Bass isn't obsessed with, but you sure as hell are obsessed with defending it.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Monkey spam by FatherTime deleted

Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural. Being a ****** is not comparable to being black or left handed, you pro faggots come up with either extreme situational cases or dumb comparisons altogether to support your nonsense.

You guys have a monopoly on hyperbole and bullshit.

Giving gays the same treatment as straights would be undertaking a radical homosexual agenda or making the army grounds for such agenda.

Wanting to mention it in casual conversation (like others can), equals wanting to flaunt it in everyone's face. You can cry all you want that no one wants to hear it but at the end of the day it's just a talking point you cannot prove.

And when you don't rely on hyperbole you rely on the stupidest arguments.

"It's not necessary to mention homosexuality." This can be used as justification to arbitrarily ban anything such as say talking about sports.

"Show us how it harms the military" It's your job to show us how it benefits the military, because if the rule has no benefit then the enforcement of said rule (which people say all good soldiers must do) is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

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.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Who they screw was entirely irrelevant to how well they did their duty.

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?

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Monkey spam by FatherTime deleted

Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural. Being a ****** is not comparable to being black or left handed, you pro faggots come up with either extreme situational cases or dumb comparisons altogether to support your nonsense.

Wow great point! I've never seen people compare homosexuals to rapists, pedophiles, bestiality, newborn cannibalism, and fake expiration dates on gallons of milk, just to try and justify their bigotry.

It doesn't matter if homosexuality is natural or not because even if it were a choice that would not justify discrimination. Every single argument you homophobes have ever presented to justify your bigotry is based on an illusion. It's the only logical conclusion because your bigotry is a self-made social cancer.

 

[CurveLight]

Who they screw was entirely irrelevant to how well they did their duty.

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?

When have you ever bitched about heterosexuals proclaiming their orientation? It's also a strawman to claim it is "necessary" for sexual orientations to be announced. The problem here is you define the world by orientations instead of people.

 

[Father Time]

Your stupid cartoons provide no evidence that homosexuality is natural, whether it hurts somebody or not is irrelevant to the fact that its not natural. Being a ****** is not comparable to being black or left handed, you pro faggots come up with either extreme situational cases or dumb comparisons altogether to support your nonsense.

You guys have a monopoly on hyperbole and bullshit.

Giving gays the same treatment as straights would be undertaking a radical homosexual agenda or making the army grounds for such agenda.

Wanting to mention it in casual conversation (like others can), equals wanting to flaunt it in everyone's face. You can cry all you want that no one wants to hear it but at the end of the day it's just a talking point you cannot prove.

And when you don't rely on hyperbole you rely on the stupidest arguments.

"It's not necessary to mention homosexuality." This can be used as justification to arbitrarily ban anything such as say talking about sports.

"Show us how it harms the military" It's your job to show us how it benefits the military, because if the rule has no benefit then the enforcement of said rule (which people say all good soldiers must do) is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

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.

 

[Father Time]

The Bass isn't obsessed with homosexuality, he's just stating the facts.

0 for 2 would you like to try again?

Animals have been observed to be homosexual and since there's no way to artificially make animals do so, it's natural.

No, homosexuality is not natural and no the Bass isn't obsessed with, but you sure as hell are obsessed with defending it.

nat·u·ral
1.
existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

Homosexuality exists in nature therefore it's natural. Although do tell me why natural should be the standard for anything? If we only stuck to natural medicine we'd be a lot worse off.

And I'm not obsessed with defending it, I haven't made dozens upon dozens of topics about homosexuality (in fact I don't even think I made 1 if that) unlike yourself.

 

[Father Time]

Who they screw was entirely irrelevant to how well they did their duty.

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?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

You guys have a monopoly on hyperbole and bullshit.

Giving gays the same treatment as straights would be undertaking a radical homosexual agenda or making the army grounds for such agenda.

Wanting to mention it in casual conversation (like others can), equals wanting to flaunt it in everyone's face. You can cry all you want that no one wants to hear it but at the end of the day it's just a talking point you cannot prove.

And when you don't rely on hyperbole you rely on the stupidest arguments.

"It's not necessary to mention homosexuality." This can be used as justification to arbitrarily ban anything such as say talking about sports.

"Show us how it harms the military" It's your job to show us how it benefits the military, because if the rule has no benefit then the enforcement of said rule (which people say all good soldiers must do) is a waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

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.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Who they screw was entirely irrelevant to how well they did their duty.

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.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have ****** sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.

 

[maineman]

Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have ****** sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.

this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make. Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway. Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces. the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays. Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination. That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest. The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one. I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays. The DoD is better off without them.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

There are many gays who are more fertile and capable of reproduction than many heteros.

•wait•. What the **** am I doing? People like Bass are thieves and not worth the energy......

 

[SFC Ollie]

Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have ****** sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.

this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make. Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway. Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces. the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays. Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination. That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest. The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one. I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays. The DoD is better off without them.

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.

 

[CurveLight]

Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have ****** sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.

this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make. Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway. Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces. the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays. Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination. That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest. The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one. I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays. The DoD is better off without them.

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 ******* 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.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make. Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway. Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces. the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays. Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination. That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest. The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one. I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays. The DoD is better off without them.

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 ******* 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.

 

[CurveLight]

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 ******* 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.

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

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The USMB pro-gay lobby wants everyone in the military who doesn't support the gay agenda to be out of the military in favor of faggots and only those who support their agenda because those who don't support the gay agenda are weak and unworthy to serve. Nevermind that these people make up the bulk of the military and do the bulk of the missions and run the military.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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 ******* 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.

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 done, 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.

 

[maineman]

Comparing blacks to faggots is wrong in the sense that skin color and ethnicity involves no moral choices nor choices of any kind, faggots and their sex acts do involve moral choices and choices in general, faggots can chose whether to have ****** sex, no such choices involve skin color ethnicity. Blacks are identified by their skin color, ethnicity and ancestry, homosexuals are known exclusively by homosexual behavior, their sexual acts. There is no proof they're born gay and their is no proof they cannot control their sexual behavior and so called "attractions2 because people have stop being faggots and have gone straight, the existence of ex-gays confirm this no matter how much faggots try to dismiss ex-gays. Stop making these stupid comparisons between blacks and faggots.

this is not so much about the choices that GAYS make, as it is the choices that others make. Like I said... the top brass of the military counseled President Truman to be cautious when he decided to integrate the amed forces, but Harry went ahead and did i anyway. Many white soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were deeply disturbed about having to serve alongside blacks, and many felt that their integration would be detrimental to the good order and discipline of the armed forces. the EXACT same argument that is being made today about gays. Your bigotry and prejudice against gay people is clear... you do not believe that they are anything but an abomination. That's all about YOU... just like military membes back in 1947 thought that blacks were somehow inferior and they balked at serving wit THEM as well. The attitudes of uniformed personnel are NOT the deciding factor... in fact, they should not be considered in the slightest. The military is most definitely not a democracy... it only serves one. I am sure that there were bigots who left the service in '47 rather than serve with blacks, just as there will be bigots who leave now rather than serve with gays. The DoD is better off without them.

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.

If, 63 years ago, if five seasoned veterans found it unpalatable to serve with "*******", I am quite sure you would have sided with them then as well.

The fact is reagrding your suggested situation: it AIN'T UP to THEM! Just like it wasn't up to their predecessors 63 years ago. Don't like it? leave. I am quite sure that the Armed Forces lost their share of seasoned veterans who left rather than share a shower with a black man, but somehow, our military survived. It will now as well.