Homosexuals should not be accepted into U.S. military forces.

[Sunni Man]

Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?

Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.

And have No business being around normal soldiers.

Something about the Constitution and living in a free country.

Exactly where in the Constitution is the need for sodomite solders addressed?

 

[Sunni Man]

Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?

Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.

And have No business being around normal soldiers.

I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't evolved past the 7th century.

So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?

 

[Marc39]

Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?

Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.

And have No business being around normal soldiers.

I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't evolved past the 7th century.

So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?

Coming from a pervert whose perverted cult of Islam was concocted by a pedophile Mahomet who packed a 6 year old little girl.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't evolved past the 7th century.

So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?

Coming from a pervert whose perverted cult of Islam was concocted by a pedophile Mahomet who packed a 6 year old little girl.

Bam! On behalf of all proud homos, thank you sir for fuckin this lame ass, closeted troll up!

 

[Oscar Wao]

So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teau7ubQTNM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[Sunni Man]

So perverts who practice packing each others fudge are somehow further evolved than normal people?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teau7ubQTNM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

The world would have got along just fine without these any of these perverts.

 

[52ndStreet]

The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.
I did hear a story of a lesbian West Point cadet was told to leave West Point, or else.!?.
Homosexuality, no matter how much you homo supporters try to sugar coat it and white wash it,
is a morally corrupt, and dispicable ,disgusting , perverted lifestyle.!
These military men should not have their reputations tarnished , by allowing openly homosexual people in their ranks.!!

 

[Ozmar]

I know... homosexual soldiers are so dangerous!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzs-U2OM02w[/ame]

Wait a minute! That was a Mohameddan soldier!

 

[SFC Ollie]

I know... homosexual soldiers are so dangerous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzs-U2OM02w

Wait a minute! That was a Mohameddan soldier!

And a whole other subject.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.
I did hear a story of a lesbian West Point cadet was told to leave West Point, or else.!?.
Homosexuality, no matter how much you homo supporters try to sugar coat it and white wash it,
is a morally corrupt, and dispicable ,disgusting , perverted lifestyle.!
These military men should not have their reputations tarnished , by allowing openly homosexual people in their ranks.!!

Hold on a minute............first question.........have YOU served?

Sunnidiot (Sunni Man) served 1 year in 'Nam. According to some of his posts, his service is questionable.

How many years did you serve again?

Ya wanna talk about "lowering the standards"? Ever hear about Reagan's 500 ship Navy? We had to lower a LOT of standards then.

BTW asshole........speaking as a military retiree who has served in no less than 4 war zones, as well as served with both gay and lesbian service members, what authority do you have that you can point to HONESTLY?

Been my experience that many gay and lesbian service members are better in many ways than those that are straight. The military deploys to foreign lands, and every service member is an ambassador for the US.

Wanna care to guess who is the most likely to understand those who are different from them?

 

[daveman]

I'm not saying gays should not be allowed in the Military but changing a rule just because other countries allow something isn't the way to go, every country is different and needs to make laws that suit them.

I'm stating that all our allies allow gays, nothing more.

If you want reasons WHY gays should be allowed to serve look at Lt. Dan Choi, who was a forward air controller who SPOKE ARABIC!!!!!!

That meant he could understand the enemy IN A WAR ZONE.

And, he was fluent, which is why he was so valuable. Out of our ENTIRE MILITARY, we only have 500 Arabic speaking troops. When he was discharged for being gay (after several honorable years of service), we lost a valuable asset, making the policy stupid as well as does harm to our military.

There's also a 19 year Air Force pilot (who saved a whole squad by himself in his aircraft, resulting in the Distinguished Flying Cross with combat insignia) who was kicked out because someone saw his e-mails and figured out he was gay.

Know how much it costs to replace a pilot? Roughly 1.5 million dollars. Yet another waste.

And there are many stories like that. Having served with gays, I've noticed that they pay better attention to detail than their straight counterparts.

Attention to detail is what they drill into you from boot camp on.

I just want to comment that, i don't know how that millitary court work, but if it is like normal court then that case should have been dismissed because it was his private email which is illegal to read (Its like stealling mail)

If it was on a government email system, it's subject to monitoring. Every time you log on to a DoD computer, there's a notice and consent banner that says the system is monitored, and use of the system is granting consent to that monitoring. It's designed for operations security, not catching the gays guys.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Not only that Dave Man, but people ought to be aware that when you join the military, you give up 50-75 percent of your rights as a civvie.

 

[Gadawg73]

The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.
I did hear a story of a lesbian West Point cadet was told to leave West Point, or else.!?.
Homosexuality, no matter how much you homo supporters try to sugar coat it and white wash it,
is a morally corrupt, and dispicable ,disgusting , perverted lifestyle.!
These military men should not have their reputations tarnished , by allowing openly homosexual people in their ranks.!!

If two people love each other why is that love bad?
How does that love affect military service and leadership?
How is love immoral?
How does love make one unfit?
You are unfit as an American citizen. You are anti freedom.
True patriots seek to protect the rights of citizens they may despise the most.
You are weak and do not know and understand the basics of freedom. Please exit the domain of The United States of America at your earliest convenience.
Your milk is weak if something as small as human sexuality affects your judgement. We do not want you amongst the strong and builders of freedom.
IOW, take a ******* hike son. You are too immature, giullible and naive to understand freedom and the support of INDIVIDUAL rights.
We are a nation of MEN, not boys and their religous beliefs.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Many things will have to change. From latrines and housing to sensitivity training. I don't have the answers to all that would have to be done, I don't think anyone really does. The survey that they just wasted millions on is flawed and can't be used either pro or con. I can only offer my own opinions based upon my time in service. And I believe that repealing DADT would be a mistake.

What about the latrines would need to change? Wait a minute now. It was ok for all males to use latrines when we don't know who was gay, but suddenly it's different now that people are out? Are you serious? The basic bathroom etiquette of "eyes on the road" apply regardless of gender or sexuality. What about housing needs to change? Gay and straight men can't be in the same facility? That's bonkers. Again, you had no problem with this when no one could mention sexuality but suddenly it's a problem now that people are self-identified? Ridiculous. Sensitivity training will and SHOULD be changed on this topic, for ALL Americans, not just soldiers, so that people like YOUR OWN SON are not scared about the concept of removing DADT. But as you said, you don't have the answers, and as you've shown, the answers you do have are crap and not thought out. And yet you still have this opinion. This comes back to and confirms what I was saying before: not all opinions are equal, and yours is crap based on "I don't know but I can guess!" Intelligent people base opinions on facts and supporting evidence. So yes, after your clarification, I am inclined to again believe you are bigoted, by the very definition of the word.

If you feel I have misinterpreted your stance in some way, please clarify.

 

[daveman]

Not only that Dave Man, but people ought to be aware that when you join the military, you give up 50-75 percent of your rights as a civvie.

Yup. I think it's worth it, or else I wouldn't have stuck around so long.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'm not saying gays should not be allowed in the Military but changing a rule just because other countries allow something isn't the way to go, every country is different and needs to make laws that suit them.

You're right in thinking the old "if everyone else jumped off a bridge" saying means you shouldn't just blindly follow the pack. I think the point there was that other countries took the plunge and the resulting evidence is favorable. So, don't just do it because others are doing it. Do it because the evidence shows it's perfectly fine.

Exactly where in the Constitution is the need for sodomite solders addressed?

No where. And that's the point.

You know, even for a troll you do say some stupid things that are clearly the result of actual stupidity and not just the trolling.

The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.

It sounds like you don't understand the concept of morality as it applies to the armed forces. So what specific part of actually being a soldier is negatively affected by sexual orientation? I'm not asking for a vague category like "morality". Give me specifics. For example, if a soldier is incapable of seeing, that would negatively affect their ability to serve. If a soldier is actively psychotic and listens to voices telling him to kill friends, that would directly be a negative characteristic for serving. Clearly you see WHY these things are bad for being a soldier.

If you want to talk STANDARDS, this is the question you should ask: What part about being gay specifically makes a soldier incapable of effectively fulfilling their duties?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Many things will have to change. From latrines and housing to sensitivity training. I don't have the answers to all that would have to be done, I don't think anyone really does. The survey that they just wasted millions on is flawed and can't be used either pro or con. I can only offer my own opinions based upon my time in service. And I believe that repealing DADT would be a mistake.

What about the latrines would need to change? Wait a minute now. It was ok for all males to use latrines when we don't know who was gay, but suddenly it's different now that people are out? Are you serious? The basic bathroom etiquette of "eyes on the road" apply regardless of gender or sexuality. What about housing needs to change? Gay and straight men can't be in the same facility? That's bonkers. Again, you had no problem with this when no one could mention sexuality but suddenly it's a problem now that people are self-identified? Ridiculous. Sensitivity training will and SHOULD be changed on this topic, for ALL Americans, not just soldiers, so that people like YOUR OWN SON are not scared about the concept of removing DADT. But as you said, you don't have the answers, and as you've shown, the answers you do have are crap and not thought out. And yet you still have this opinion. This comes back to and confirms what I was saying before: not all opinions are equal, and yours is crap based on "I don't know but I can guess!" Intelligent people base opinions on facts and supporting evidence. So yes, after your clarification, I am inclined to again believe you are bigoted, by the very definition of the word.

If you feel I have misinterpreted your stance in some way, please clarify.

Have you taken time to read this? 10 Problems With Obama's 'Don't Ask' Report - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[steelpoint]

Why do you and others insist that we MUST have open flaming sodomite soldiers in our military?

Just by being a homo means that they are weak willed and mentally deficient.

And have No business being around normal soldiers.

I'd expect nothing more or less from a person who is a member of a religion that hasn't evolved past the 7th century.

Alright guys that's kind of inappropriate.

 

[steelpoint]

The United States Army should not have to lower its admission standards into institutions such
as West Point, that require its cadets to be of out standing moral character, mentally fit, physically fit,
and morally fit. As far as I am concerned, and many in the Military will agree with me, homosexuality
is morally corrupt act, and it should not be allowed in the U.S. armed forces or its military academies.
I did hear a story of a lesbian West Point cadet was told to leave West Point, or else.!?.
Homosexuality, no matter how much you homo supporters try to sugar coat it and white wash it,
is a morally corrupt, and dispicable ,disgusting , perverted lifestyle.!
These military men should not have their reputations tarnished , by allowing openly homosexual people in their ranks.!!

Hold on a minute............first question.........have YOU served?

Sunnidiot (Sunni Man) served 1 year in 'Nam. According to some of his posts, his service is questionable.

How many years did you serve again?

Ya wanna talk about "lowering the standards"? Ever hear about Reagan's 500 ship Navy? We had to lower a LOT of standards then.

BTW asshole........speaking as a military retiree who has served in no less than 4 war zones, as well as served with both gay and lesbian service members, what authority do you have that you can point to HONESTLY?

Been my experience that many gay and lesbian service members are better in many ways than those that are straight. The military deploys to foreign lands, and every service member is an ambassador for the US.

Wanna care to guess who is the most likely to understand those who are different from them?

Hoorah!!!!!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I just read your article, and now understand where you're getting your ridiculous ideas. I'll knock down each of their 10 points individually. First let me start by saying I don't care about the speculation or unsupported opinion of other people, so any point focusing on "but some percent believed something" is worthless. The best evidence we have as to whether armed forces can act successfully with openly gay individuals is examining other countries that already do it. As someone else pointed out, every other NATO country allows sexual identification, without negative consequences arising from it. With that being said, questions that focus on speculation or mere opinion include 1, 3, 4, 8, 9

2: worries that extending equal rights to gays will cost money. Do you feel gays should or should not be given the same rights and privileges as straight people? Yes, offering equality means you need to provide the same things for a previously disenfranchised group. Or do you think this minority group should be treated as deserving of less than their straight counterparts? You tell me whether this point in the article is valid.

It then goes on to speculate about HIV, stating "the military already has more than 1,000 HIV infected personnel and many contracted the virus via homosexual sex". Do you think the writer purposely or accidentally left out "and many contracted the virus via heterosexual sex?" Yes, rates are higher in gay men, but that doesn't preclude the fact that about a third of all hiv cases in this country are transmitted from heterosexual acts. REGARDLESS, such medical issues would be present no matter if DADT were preserved or repealed, which makes this yet another useless point.

5 and 6: WHO CARES that no one "accounted for" the fact that the coast guard responded to the survey more than the army. Are you serious? Does that author believe the response rate is somehow proof that DADT repeal is bad? The remainder of this point tries to claim that the survey has flaws. Let's assume for a moment that's true. Does that mean the opposite of the conclusions drawn from the survey are suddenly correct? Or does it simply mean that the conclusions drawn from the survey are not representative?

7: appears to claim that the armed forces are bad at dealing with sexual assault, so therefore we shouldn't have any rules that deal with sex or sexuality so they don't need to deal with it because they're bad at dealing with it. Interesting. Here's a better solution: GET BETTER AT DEALING WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT. I find it appalling that someone would believe we might as turn a blind eye to horrible criminal acts because its too awkward and uncomfortable to deal with.

10: was the point of the survey in the first place: so we can make policy recommendations.

So it looks like there were really 3 points they wanted to make, but didn't want to entitled the article "3 problems With Obama's 'Don't Ask' Report" so they came up with 5 comments on speculation, 1 on why the survey was used in the first place, and 2 of which that just said the same thing.

Let me know which part of my critique you disagree with.