The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[slukasiewski]

What is the concern about gays in the Military? gay sex orgies everywhere?

Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...

Correct me if I'm wrong (with a link please) but I don't believe that there are any questions any more on enlistment documents requiring someone to disclose their sexual orientation.

If they were not asked, they didn't have to tell, and they didn't have to lie. I believe that was the whole premise of - well - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".



>>>>

I never asserted it asks your orientation - I recall it asked if you have ever engaged in a gay act.

 

[slukasiewski]

You are asked if you have ever engaged in a homo act when you apply, brainiac.
If you have and you check "NO," you've just lied, and if caught, could be charged with fraudulant enlistment.

Had you ever enlisted, you know such a basic fact.

Idiot.

Completely untrue. I know that when I enlisted I was never asked if I was gay, and neither was anyone I know. Part of the DADT law as that it was ILLEGAL for anyone to ask about another person's sexual orientation.

What did you enlist in? The Salvation Army?

 

[gekaap]

What did you enlist in? The Salvation Army?

Yep, that's it. You got me.

Your attempt at an ad hominem will not detract from the fact that you have been proven wrong, and you have no response of substance to offer.

 

[slukasiewski]

What did you enlist in? The Salvation Army?

Yep, that's it. You got me.

Your attempt at an ad hominem will not detract from the fact that you have been proven wrong, and you have no response of substance to offer.

Read post 601 dumb ass

Try keeping up

 

[gekaap]

Read post 601 dumb ass

Try keeping up

I read it, and it's still untrue. What you are claiming would be illegal. And your continued attempts to get abusive only further highlight how ignorant you are on the matter.

 

[slukasiewski]

Read post 601 dumb ass

Try keeping up

I read it, and it's still untrue. What you are claiming would be illegal. And your continued attempts to get abusive only further highlight how ignorant you are on the matter.

Well, it's on there. Prove otherwise Cleatus. Short of that - shove it.

Case closed...

Next!

 

[kaz]

1. Actually AIDS is not a gay disease, HIV (the virus causing AID) is just that - a virus. It will infect a person just as easily if they are heterosexual or homosexuals. It doesn't "care" who it infects, it doesn't "target" homosexuals. A person becomes infected through unprotected sex with an infected person or through the transmission of bodily fluids outside of sex.

2. The HIV virus didn't start in North American, it started in Africa and spread around the world.

3. There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million), in Sub-Saharan Africa the infection rate is 5.0% with 22.5 Million cases and the population is primarily heterosexuals. In other words about 68% of those with HIV are in Sub-Saharan Africa and it has primarily infected heterosexuals.

4. As a backup to the first source, the CIA even publishes lists of HIV rates and you can clearly see the highest rates are in African countries.

Worldwide AIDS & HIV Statistics
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html


>>>>

OK, fair enough. In the United States it's primarily a gay disease based on rates of homosexuals who have it versus heterosexuals. Though this is obvious since I quoted the CDC rates in the United States.

I'm not arguing this nit picky point anymore without new data. It's obviously a disease that strikes primarily homosexuals in this country. Their activities foster spreading the disease more then whites in this country to make you happy. I didn't draw any moral conclusion from that, I pointed out the fact. And that fact is irrefutable.

what a peace of shit . you believe its a non white disease ?

go light you cross o0n your neighbor's lawn .

OK, fine. Gays and straights have the same chance of getting AIDS. It's homophobic to think that just because gays are 2% of the population and have 2 thirds of the cases of AIDS that there is any correlation between being gay and getting AIDS.

Only liberals need to argue like this. Facts are less important then liberal ideology. If a fact doesn't support your view, you ignore that and just go to ad hominem attacks. You're a loser.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.

But this thread has gone to shit.

I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....

Enjoy.....

 

[kaz]

Civilians don't understand the concept or benefits of team. That is why civilians can't understand the damage that will be done by letting sexual deviants serve openly in the military

I personally don't like arguments in which you could replace the word gay with things like black and make the same point. I've argued DADT to allow them to live their own life and I see no reason they need to tell other then as a political statement. That argument cannot be used for "black." But from your argument, shouldn't you as a member of a team not pass judgment for doing things that don't affect you in any way? What kind of a teammate are you when you do that?

Kaz, I have always been considered a respected, reliable team mate. That is an earned reputation. How about you?

I believe that gays should be allowed to lead their own lives in a law abiding manner in the civilian sector. That is their right as U.S. Citizens. However serving in the military isn't a right. Military service is a privilege that demands high standards. Sexual deviance is not an acceptable standard. The privilage of military service is refused for many reasons. Sexual deviance is just one of those reasons. Kaz, I think that if you truly understood the impact of team concept in the military you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.

One last thing where did this black thing come from. I've served with black soldiers that I counted as my friends, and whom I would trust with my life. They in turn would trust me with theirs. We called these folks soldiers. They were only given a color component when dealt with narrow minded civilians. Is this black thing a desperate, racist attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that sexual deviants shouldn't be serving openly in the military?

Have a nice day.

First on the black that was an analogy, I was in no way calling you a racist. I'm saying though that someone who didn't like blacks could make the same argument you did about homosexuals. It would be disruptive. The difference is that when gays are gay, they do not in any way affect you. I see no reason they need to go around in the military saying they are gay, and I see no reason you have to pass judgment on what they do in private between consenting adults calling them sexual deviants. Why don't you practice your own morality and leave others to theirs? Especially your teammates.

As for your comments on sexual deviants what about heterosexuals who have oral or anal sex? What if they have a threesome? What about pre-marital sex? Are those sexual deviants too? If so, shall we ferret them out too? How do we decide? I have no issue with gays, I do have an issue with impeding the military by driving social issues through it and that is what I see the left doing here. In the end, if you are going to alienate people like me who actually want to support you doing your mission and keeping social agendas out of it, you'd better get used to gays openly fighting along side you.

I expect gays to keep their agenda out of it, but I expect you to keep yours out as well and focus on the mission, defending your country. I don't want to pick, I want politics out of it. But if you're saying I have to, you aren't going to like the outcome. I just want you both to keep your business to yourselves that isn't military.

 

[bodecea]

I don't recall anyone or any written question asking about my sexual orientation during my 22 years of service.

But this thread has gone to shit.

I truly hope that the US Military does not experience the problems that I foresee. I hope I am wrong. But this was still really bad timing.....

Enjoy.....

When would be better timing, if I may ask?

 

[High_Gravity]

I personally don't like arguments in which you could replace the word gay with things like black and make the same point. I've argued DADT to allow them to live their own life and I see no reason they need to tell other then as a political statement. That argument cannot be used for "black." But from your argument, shouldn't you as a member of a team not pass judgment for doing things that don't affect you in any way? What kind of a teammate are you when you do that?

Kaz, I have always been considered a respected, reliable team mate. That is an earned reputation. How about you?

I believe that gays should be allowed to lead their own lives in a law abiding manner in the civilian sector. That is their right as U.S. Citizens. However serving in the military isn't a right. Military service is a privilege that demands high standards. Sexual deviance is not an acceptable standard. The privilage of military service is refused for many reasons. Sexual deviance is just one of those reasons. Kaz, I think that if you truly understood the impact of team concept in the military you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.

One last thing where did this black thing come from. I've served with black soldiers that I counted as my friends, and whom I would trust with my life. They in turn would trust me with theirs. We called these folks soldiers. They were only given a color component when dealt with narrow minded civilians. Is this black thing a desperate, racist attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that sexual deviants shouldn't be serving openly in the military?

Have a nice day.

First on the black that was an analogy, I was in no way calling you a racist. I'm saying though that someone who didn't like blacks could make the same argument you did about homosexuals. It would be disruptive. The difference is that when gays are gay, they do not in any way affect you. I see no reason they need to go around in the military saying they are gay, and I see no reason you have to pass judgment on what they do in private between consenting adults calling them sexual deviants. Why don't you practice your own morality and leave others to theirs? Especially your teammates.

As for your comments on sexual deviants what about heterosexuals who have oral or anal sex? What if they have a threesome? What about pre-marital sex? Are those sexual deviants too? If so, shall we ferret them out too? How do we decide? I have no issue with gays, I do have an issue with impeding the military by driving social issues through it and that is what I see the left doing here. In the end, if you are going to alienate people like me who actually want to support you doing your mission and keeping social agendas out of it, you'd better get used to gays openly fighting along side you.

I expect gays to keep their agenda out of it, but I expect you to keep yours out as well and focus on the mission, defending your country. I don't want to pick, I want politics out of it. But if you're saying I have to, you aren't going to like the outcome. I just want you both to keep your business to yourselves that isn't military.

Exactly, you don't have to be gay to be a sexual deviant.

 

[kaz]

OK, fair enough. In the United States it's primarily a gay disease based on rates of homosexuals who have it versus heterosexuals. Though this is obvious since I quoted the CDC rates in the United States.

I'm not arguing this nit picky point anymore without new data. It's obviously a disease that strikes primarily homosexuals in this country. Their activities foster spreading the disease more then whites in this country to make you happy. I didn't draw any moral conclusion from that, I pointed out the fact. And that fact is irrefutable.

And yet you continue to refuse to seek any data that are specific to the military.

Why would I do that since none of my points regarding the military had anything to do with AIDS? Finding data on the military is homework you assigned me that I don't see the relevance of. Unfortunately for you I don't concede you have the power to assign me homework.

 

[gekaap]

Well, it's on there. Prove otherwise Cleatus. Short of that - shove it.

Case closed...

Next!

Another logical fallacy. Arguing from ignorance.

 

[bodecea]

Well, it's on there. Prove otherwise Cleatus. Short of that - shove it.

Case closed...

Next!

Another logical fallacy. Arguing from ignorance.

Why even bother with an admitted cold blooded killer.

 

[gekaap]

Why would I do that since none of my points regarding the military had anything to do with AIDS? Finding data on the military is homework you assigned me that I don't see the relevance of. Unfortunately for you I don't concede you have the power to assign me homework.

All of the talk about HIV rates, and whatever demographics it may or may not infect with greater or lesser frequency (which you've done alot of talking about) are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about rates of HIV infection in the military and origins of infection, then you'd be saying something relevant. But so far EVERYTHING you have said about HIV is irrelevant to the subject.

 

[kaz]

Well, it's on there. Prove otherwise Cleatus. Short of that - shove it.

Case closed...

Next!

Another logical fallacy. Arguing from ignorance.

I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is. And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book. Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.

 

[kaz]

Why would I do that since none of my points regarding the military had anything to do with AIDS? Finding data on the military is homework you assigned me that I don't see the relevance of. Unfortunately for you I don't concede you have the power to assign me homework.

All of the talk about HIV rates, and whatever demographics it may or may not infect with greater or lesser frequency (which you've done alot of talking about) are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about rates of HIV infection in the military and origins of infection, then you'd be saying something relevant. But so far EVERYTHING you have said about HIV is irrelevant to the subject.

Since I was responding to a point on AIDS, why didn't you object to the person who actually raised it rather then me to responding to it? It was a liberal, wasn't it? That's why. Maybe it was you. But to criticize me for responding to a point as being off topic and not the person who did it is typical for your agenda driven nonsense you post on every topic you post

 

[gekaap]

I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is. And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book. Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.

In other words, you don't like my conclusions but have nothing of substance with which to respond, so you're going to try to attack me on a personal level, in hopes that you'll get some traction. That's also a logical fallacy.

I understood Atlas Shrugged perfectly. The only thing Rand describes is a fantasy land. But that's neither here nor there.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Mainly - they can't be trusted. For starters, they lie to get in, fraudulantly. Right off the bat, they've committed a felony...

Correct me if I'm wrong (with a link please) but I don't believe that there are any questions any more on enlistment documents requiring someone to disclose their sexual orientation.

If they were not asked, they didn't have to tell, and they didn't have to lie. I believe that was the whole premise of - well - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".



>>>>

I never asserted it asks your orientation - I recall it asked if you have ever engaged in a gay act.

It used to. But hasn't for years and years. Now there are no questions on orientation or sex acts, so if they aren't asked they didn't like. That's what DADT was all about.



>>>>

 

[gekaap]

Since I was responding to a point on AIDS, why didn't you object to the person who actually raised it rather then me to responding to it? It was a liberal, wasn't it? That's why. Maybe it was you. But to criticize me for responding to a point as being off topic and not the person who did it is typical for your agenda driven nonsense you post on every topic you post

Maybe you jumped in too quickly without understanding what you were getting into. The entire question in this thread of who does or does not get HIV has centered on whether allowing gay people in the military poses a meaningful risk of spreading HIV to others. So, by jumping into that part of the discussion, you joined the context as well. Thus I was right to respond to you within that context, and point out that ANY DISCUSSION in this thread on the matter is irrelevant if it does not address the issue specifically within that context.