The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[Spoonman]

Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.

I only told you he got separated. I didn't tell anyone what he did, but it was pretty epic.

Rio is a fun place by the way........

I bet, its my dream to go down there.

check out the olympics

 

[ABikerSailor]

Bikers a civilian now, don't think theres too much the good LT can do.

I only told you he got separated. I didn't tell anyone what he did, but it was pretty epic.

Rio is a fun place by the way........

I bet, its my dream to go down there.

If you do go, and these 2 clubs are still over in Ipanema, check out The Night and Day Club and Don Juan's.

Trust me........you won't be disappointed if you go there single. I know this for a fact.

 

[High_Gravity]

I only told you he got separated. I didn't tell anyone what he did, but it was pretty epic.

Rio is a fun place by the way........

I bet, its my dream to go down there.

If you do go, and these 2 clubs are still over in Ipanema, check out The Night and Day Club and Don Juan's.

Trust me........you won't be disappointed if you go there single. I know this for a fact.

Yeah I definently don't want to go there with my girlfriend lol.

 

[Spoonman]

I bet, its my dream to go down there.

If you do go, and these 2 clubs are still over in Ipanema, check out The Night and Day Club and Don Juan's.

Trust me........you won't be disappointed if you go there single. I know this for a fact.

Yeah I definently don't want to go there with my girlfriend lol.

Look up the girl from Ipanema. I hear she's tall and tan, and young and lovely

 

[ABikerSailor]

I bet, its my dream to go down there.

If you do go, and these 2 clubs are still over in Ipanema, check out The Night and Day Club and Don Juan's.

Trust me........you won't be disappointed if you go there single. I know this for a fact.

Yeah I definently don't want to go there with my girlfriend lol.

Well......you could, but unless she's VERY open minded, you'd end up single.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I had to look up the Dep ID online, I was wrong the Spouses rank is listed. Seems to me it never was in the past. At any rate I was wrong.

I called my nearest RAPIDS about the double ID. From what I was told (Remember these guys are reservists) They have seen it when one spouse is Active and the other is Reserve, And I can understand that. But they have doubts about it being authorized if both are Active duty.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I had to look up the Dep ID online, I was wrong the Spouses rank is listed. Seems to me it never was in the past. At any rate I was wrong.

I called my nearest RAPIDS about the double ID. From what I was told (Remember these guys are reservists) They have seen it when one spouse is Active and the other is Reserve, And I can understand that. But they have doubts about it being authorized if both are Active duty.

I was an active duty Personnelman. And yes, I've seen it happen. But, the only reason she was authorized to have it was because she had to be able to get into the Officer's Mess without being signed in. That is why I posted the part about the dual status people.

BTW Ollie, have a pos rep for being able to admit when you're wrong.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't know bro I made out with my former section commander at Vandenberg Air Force Base, she was a 1st Lieutenant and I was a Staff Sergeant, she never said anything about it, I also dated a hot looking chick from El Salvadar who was a E-4, nothing really came of that though, I think the Military really gets pissed if you are in the same chain of command though.

In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced. Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program. He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars. They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.

Me? When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service. One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living. My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base. At the time, I was a 2nd Class. I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date. It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.

Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.

Good day gay biker. It took me a while to respond. I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT. That was the funniest "story"that I've ever heard. Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?

Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time. Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced. Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays? Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out? Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?

Gays don't belong in the military. When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors. Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.

Why, exactly, do you think the system is going to be controlled by openly serving gays?

I'm not even going to bother with your use of predation.

 

[yota5]

In the Navy, fraternizaton between enlisted and officer was strictly enforced. Only exception that I saw to that was a mustang LT who used to be a 1st Class and got selected for officer program. He was married at the time, and his wife was a 2nd Class when he got his bars. They told him that he couldn't fraternize with his wife any more and he told them to shove it because he wasn't getting divorced. Only person I ever saw in my life who was authorized a green active duty ID, and a peach colored dependent ID that said she was an LT's wife.

Me? When I first got to the Naval War College at Newport RI, I got into this telephone singles service. One of the women that I called, shit.......we hit it off immediately and were having a really good conversation until I asked what she did for a living. My heart sank when she said she was a JAG LCDR at the base. At the time, I was a 2nd Class. I then told her thanks very much for the conversation, but according to Navy regs, we weren't allowed to date. It was too bad, because I did see her on the base, and man was she good looking.

Like I said, I don't know what kind of unprofessional rejects Yo Turd ever served with (if at all), but it sounds to me like they were more of a reserve outfit rather than full blown active duty.

Good day gay biker. It took me a while to respond. I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT. That was the funniest "story"that I've ever heard. Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?

Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time. Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced. Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays? Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out? Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?

Gays don't belong in the military. When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors. Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.

Why, exactly, do you think the system is going to be controlled by openly serving gays?

I'm not even going to bother with your use of predation.

Montrovant, your reply tells me that you're gay. In spite of that I thought that you were more intelligent then you apparently are. Your bias has clouded your vision to the point that you're making irrational statements. You probably didn't want to address the gay predation issue because you knew that you couldn't defend your point of view.

History shows that gays in position of power always prey on the weakest in our society. One only has to look at members of clergy to get a good idea of what is in store for the military in the future.

I challenge you to quote a historical precedent that will support your point of view. I don't think that you'll find anything to help you in that regard.

Yes. I do think that gays will one day be elevated to positions were they will be able to control the "system".

 

[yota5]

I see Yo Turd.........now you're into demonizing the gays.

Worked for Hitler when he wanted rid of the Jews, and it's also used against homosexuals in Uganda (thanks to C Street), where they prosecute them and kill them.

Are you saying they're right?

Good morning gaybikersailor. I see that your deviant mind has worked itself into an incoherent lather. As usual you add nothing substantive to the discussion. I presented verifiable fact. You countered with an unsupported rant. Would it surprise you to know that you haven't furthered your cause.

GBS, it is commonly held knowledge that history can't be spun to favor one group over another. With history the facts, and events are what they are. You seem most angered over the fact that historically gays have a very dismal track record.

It is undeniable fact that gays whether they be in the clergy, health care, legal profession, or lay occupations, et al, stalk and prey on the most vulnerable in our society. Taking all of that into advisement how can you expect the heterosexual community to be enthusiastic about accepting gays into the military?

History really would lead us to conclude that gay officers, and NCO's would prey on their subordinates. How can that contribute to a units esprit de corps, and combat readiness?

Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank? It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.

Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.

And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak. When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays? If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?

Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.

There are also laws against gays serving openly in the military. Yet there you are. Now explain to me again how the UCMJ is going to prevent gay officers, and NCO's from preying on the rank and file. The units that I served with were decidedly professional. As a added enhancement we didn't have any known rump rangers running around. Life was good.

 

[Grace]

Good morning Yota! Have you spit on any deviants today?

 

[bodecea]

Good morning gaybikersailor. I see that your deviant mind has worked itself into an incoherent lather. As usual you add nothing substantive to the discussion. I presented verifiable fact. You countered with an unsupported rant. Would it surprise you to know that you haven't furthered your cause.

GBS, it is commonly held knowledge that history can't be spun to favor one group over another. With history the facts, and events are what they are. You seem most angered over the fact that historically gays have a very dismal track record.

It is undeniable fact that gays whether they be in the clergy, health care, legal profession, or lay occupations, et al, stalk and prey on the most vulnerable in our society. Taking all of that into advisement how can you expect the heterosexual community to be enthusiastic about accepting gays into the military?

History really would lead us to conclude that gay officers, and NCO's would prey on their subordinates. How can that contribute to a units esprit de corps, and combat readiness?

Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank? It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.

Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.

And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak. When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays? If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?

Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.

There are also laws against gays serving openly in the military. Yet there you are. Now explain to me again how the UCMJ is going to prevent gay officers, and NCO's from preying on the rank and file. The units that I served with were decidedly professional. As a added enhancement we didn't have any known rump rangers running around. Life was good.

The same way the UCMJ prevents straight officers and NCOs from preying on the rank and file. You really need someone to point that out for you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are also laws against gays serving openly in the military.

Not for long, you may have heard about it, DADT has been repealed and the military is currently conducting training. Reports are that the training phase will soon be complete and that the 90-day clock will be started. Should be gone by the end of summer or early fall.

Now explain to me again how the UCMJ is going to prevent gay officers, and NCO's from preying on the rank and file.

Most of us that were in the military understand that fraternization is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 134 as a primary offense or even as a secondary offense with the primary offense being a violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation). As such commands will always have instructions/policies/standing orders prohibiting fraternization and sexual harassment.

Manual of the Courts Martial
Uniform Code of Military Justice
Article 134—(Fraternization)
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned or warrant
officer;
(2) That the accused fraternized on terms of military
equality with one or more certain enlisted member(
s) in a certain manner;
(3) That the accused then knew the person(s) to
be (an) enlisted member(s);
(4) That such fraternization violated the custom
of the accused’s service that officers shall not fraternize
with enlisted members on terms of military
equality; and
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of
the accused was to the prejudice of good order and
discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to
bring discredit upon the armed forces.
c. Explanation.
(1) In general. The gist of this offense is a viola-
tion of the custom of the armed forces against fratern
ization. Not all contact or association between
officers and enlisted persons is an offense. Whether
the contact or association in question is an offense
depends on the surrounding circumstances. Factors
to be considered include whether the conduct has
compromised the chain of command, resulted in the
appearance of partiality, or otherwise undermined
good order, discipline, authority, or morale. The acts
and circumstances must be such as to lead a reasonable
person experienced in the problems of military
leadership to conclude that the good order and discipline
of the armed forces has been prejudiced by
their tendency to compromise the respect of enlisted
persons for the professionalism, integrity, and obligations
of an officer.
(2) Regulations. Regulations, directives, and orders
may also govern conduct between officer and
enlisted personnel on both a service-wide and a local
basis. Relationships between enlisted persons of different
ranks, or between officers of different ranks
may be similarly covered. Violations of such regulations,
directives, or orders may be punishable under
Article 92. See paragraph 16.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf​

>>>>

 

[Montrovant]

Good day gay biker. It took me a while to respond. I had difficulty controlling my laughter after reading about the mustang LT. That was the funniest "story"that I've ever heard. Having said that do you really expect us to believe your demented deviant BS?

Fraternization has been around since the beginning of time. Anti-fraternization protocol has never been successfully enforced. Keeping that in mind, can you imagine the problems enforcing anti-gay sexual predation protocol when the system is controlled by openly serving gays? Can you imagine the legal, and media exposure to the government when little Johnny or Mary goes home, and tells the folks what goes on after the lights go out? Would you care to guess what this Presidents legacy will be?

Gays don't belong in the military. When young men and women are sent into harms way they should be able to trust their battle buddy, and superiors. Gays serving openly will only serve to degrade a units combat readiness, and esprit de corps.

Why, exactly, do you think the system is going to be controlled by openly serving gays?

I'm not even going to bother with your use of predation.

Montrovant, your reply tells me that you're gay. In spite of that I thought that you were more intelligent then you apparently are. Your bias has clouded your vision to the point that you're making irrational statements. You probably didn't want to address the gay predation issue because you knew that you couldn't defend your point of view.

History shows that gays in position of power always prey on the weakest in our society. One only has to look at members of clergy to get a good idea of what is in store for the military in the future.

I challenge you to quote a historical precedent that will support your point of view. I don't think that you'll find anything to help you in that regard.

Yes. I do think that gays will one day be elevated to positions were they will be able to control the "system".

I see you didn't answer my question. I asked WHY gays will be in control, not if they will be. As gays are a fairly small percentage of the population, in order for them to be in control they would need to have a much larger portion of their population at higher rank than the straight population, yes? If that is true, you seem to be either saying that gays can perform well in the military in order to obtain those ranks, which seems to make your arguments invalid, or you are saying that the military is going to promote gays in large enough numbers to have control of the system despite their supposedly negative effects, which says bad things about the state of the military anyway. Either way, you are contradicting your own argument that gays do not make good soldiers.

As it happens, I am not gay. However, since you obviously consider gays to be lesser people, and you are pretty clearly an idiot when it comes to this issue, I will take your assumption that I am gay as a compliment. By the same basic rationale, I consider your take on my intelligence a compliment.

I have no problem acknowledging that clergy have been involved in a number of cases of abuse. However, I have a few issues with using that as an example of homosexuals being predators. There is a question of how many of those abuses were homosexual in nature. There is a question of whether the abusers were driven by homosexuality or not (there is a school of thought that, like rape, sexual child abuse is about power and control rather than sexual attraction). Even if I were to accept that every member of the clergy that abused a child were a homosexual, there is a question of whether that is evidence of the nature of all homosexuals, or if there are other factors at play, such as the sexual repression which is so often a part of being a member of the clergy. There is a question of whether members of the religions whose clergy abuse children should also be considered predators. Finally, I question whether a tendency to abuse children will translate to abuses of adult soldiers.

I'm pretty sure I haven't clearly stated my point of view, but I'll ignore that for now. You ask for historical precedent. If I remember correctly, there have been multiple occasions in this thread in which you have been presented with a list of US allies which allow openly gay soldiers to serve. Perhaps it is recent history, but if those nations have not seen a reduction in military readiness since allowing gays to serve openly, that seems a clear precedent. In response, I would like to ask you for any historical precedent showing that openly serving gays are a detriment to a military force.

I would also like to see the history that clearly shows gays prey on the weakest members of society, if it is in a way that heterosexuals do not also do.

Also, I can't recall if you ever answered the question about what, exactly, constitutes a sexual deviant to you? I believe you were asked that in this thread because you have been using the phrase so often for gays and said that sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve. With any number of sexual foibles or fetishes practiced by heterosexuals that could be considered deviant, I would like to know if anyone other than gays counts as a sexual deviant in your mind. If you have answered the question previously and I either forgot or missed it, I apologize.

There are some rational concerns I have heard about allowing gays to serve openly. You, however, seem to base your opposition on irrational ones. Your arguments appear to boil down to, 'I don't like gays, so keep them out'.

 

[yota5]

Why, exactly, do you think the system is going to be controlled by openly serving gays?

I'm not even going to bother with your use of predation.

Montrovant, your reply tells me that you're gay. In spite of that I thought that you were more intelligent then you apparently are. Your bias has clouded your vision to the point that you're making irrational statements. You probably didn't want to address the gay predation issue because you knew that you couldn't defend your point of view.

History shows that gays in position of power always prey on the weakest in our society. One only has to look at members of clergy to get a good idea of what is in store for the military in the future.

I challenge you to quote a historical precedent that will support your point of view. I don't think that you'll find anything to help you in that regard.

Yes. I do think that gays will one day be elevated to positions were they will be able to control the "system".

I see you didn't answer my question. I asked WHY gays will be in control, not if they will be. As gays are a fairly small percentage of the population, in order for them to be in control they would need to have a much larger portion of their population at higher rank than the straight population, yes? If that is true, you seem to be either saying that gays can perform well in the military in order to obtain those ranks, which seems to make your arguments invalid, or you are saying that the military is going to promote gays in large enough numbers to have control of the system despite their supposedly negative effects, which says bad things about the state of the military anyway. Either way, you are contradicting your own argument that gays do not make good soldiers.

As it happens, I am not gay. However, since you obviously consider gays to be lesser people, and you are pretty clearly an idiot when it comes to this issue, I will take your assumption that I am gay as a compliment. By the same basic rationale, I consider your take on my intelligence a compliment.

I have no problem acknowledging that clergy have been involved in a number of cases of abuse. However, I have a few issues with using that as an example of homosexuals being predators. There is a question of how many of those abuses were homosexual in nature. There is a question of whether the abusers were driven by homosexuality or not (there is a school of thought that, like rape, sexual child abuse is about power and control rather than sexual attraction). Even if I were to accept that every member of the clergy that abused a child were a homosexual, there is a question of whether that is evidence of the nature of all homosexuals, or if there are other factors at play, such as the sexual repression which is so often a part of being a member of the clergy. There is a question of whether members of the religions whose clergy abuse children should also be considered predators. Finally, I question whether a tendency to abuse children will translate to abuses of adult soldiers.

I'm pretty sure I haven't clearly stated my point of view, but I'll ignore that for now. You ask for historical precedent. If I remember correctly, there have been multiple occasions in this thread in which you have been presented with a list of US allies which allow openly gay soldiers to serve. Perhaps it is recent history, but if those nations have not seen a reduction in military readiness since allowing gays to serve openly, that seems a clear precedent. In response, I would like to ask you for any historical precedent showing that openly serving gays are a detriment to a military force.

I would also like to see the history that clearly shows gays prey on the weakest members of society, if it is in a way that heterosexuals do not also do.

Also, I can't recall if you ever answered the question about what, exactly, constitutes a sexual deviant to you? I believe you were asked that in this thread because you have been using the phrase so often for gays and said that sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve. With any number of sexual foibles or fetishes practiced by heterosexuals that could be considered deviant, I would like to know if anyone other than gays counts as a sexual deviant in your mind. If you have answered the question previously and I either forgot or missed it, I apologize.

There are some rational concerns I have heard about allowing gays to serve openly. You, however, seem to base your opposition on irrational ones. Your arguments appear to boil down to, 'I don't like gays, so keep them out'.

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.

 

[yota5]

Good morning Yota! Have you spit on any deviants today?

Good morning Grace. I don't associate with deviants of any kind. Therefore there weren't any deviants to spit on. This is a good thing. I hope that you have a blessed day.

 

[yota5]

Hey stupid.........what about straight soldiers hitting on chicks that are below their rank? It's called sexual harassment and isn't allowed in the military, because if it occurs, it is quashed quite quickly.

Dunno what kind of unprofessional rejects you served with, but every unit I've been stationed with was pretty good about making sure we followed the UCMJ.

And, there you go again...........demonizing all gays and painting them with one broad brush when in reality you don't know shit about which you speak. When (if actually) you served, did you know of any gays? If so, did you speak with them, or just throw them over the side and commit murder?

Face it Yo Turd, you're just a bigoted hack.

There are also laws against gays serving openly in the military. Yet there you are. Now explain to me again how the UCMJ is going to prevent gay officers, and NCO's from preying on the rank and file. The units that I served with were decidedly professional. As a added enhancement we didn't have any known rump rangers running around. Life was good.

The same way the UCMJ prevents straight officers and NCOs from preying on the rank and file. You really need someone to point that out for you?

My point exactly Bod. Once openly serving gay officers and NCO's are given a free hand the USMJ will be just as ineffectual in protecting the troops against them. I'm surprised that I have to point that out to you.

 

[Montrovant]

Montrovant, your reply tells me that you're gay. In spite of that I thought that you were more intelligent then you apparently are. Your bias has clouded your vision to the point that you're making irrational statements. You probably didn't want to address the gay predation issue because you knew that you couldn't defend your point of view.

History shows that gays in position of power always prey on the weakest in our society. One only has to look at members of clergy to get a good idea of what is in store for the military in the future.

I challenge you to quote a historical precedent that will support your point of view. I don't think that you'll find anything to help you in that regard.

Yes. I do think that gays will one day be elevated to positions were they will be able to control the "system".

I see you didn't answer my question. I asked WHY gays will be in control, not if they will be. As gays are a fairly small percentage of the population, in order for them to be in control they would need to have a much larger portion of their population at higher rank than the straight population, yes? If that is true, you seem to be either saying that gays can perform well in the military in order to obtain those ranks, which seems to make your arguments invalid, or you are saying that the military is going to promote gays in large enough numbers to have control of the system despite their supposedly negative effects, which says bad things about the state of the military anyway. Either way, you are contradicting your own argument that gays do not make good soldiers.

As it happens, I am not gay. However, since you obviously consider gays to be lesser people, and you are pretty clearly an idiot when it comes to this issue, I will take your assumption that I am gay as a compliment. By the same basic rationale, I consider your take on my intelligence a compliment.

I have no problem acknowledging that clergy have been involved in a number of cases of abuse. However, I have a few issues with using that as an example of homosexuals being predators. There is a question of how many of those abuses were homosexual in nature. There is a question of whether the abusers were driven by homosexuality or not (there is a school of thought that, like rape, sexual child abuse is about power and control rather than sexual attraction). Even if I were to accept that every member of the clergy that abused a child were a homosexual, there is a question of whether that is evidence of the nature of all homosexuals, or if there are other factors at play, such as the sexual repression which is so often a part of being a member of the clergy. There is a question of whether members of the religions whose clergy abuse children should also be considered predators. Finally, I question whether a tendency to abuse children will translate to abuses of adult soldiers.

I'm pretty sure I haven't clearly stated my point of view, but I'll ignore that for now. You ask for historical precedent. If I remember correctly, there have been multiple occasions in this thread in which you have been presented with a list of US allies which allow openly gay soldiers to serve. Perhaps it is recent history, but if those nations have not seen a reduction in military readiness since allowing gays to serve openly, that seems a clear precedent. In response, I would like to ask you for any historical precedent showing that openly serving gays are a detriment to a military force.

I would also like to see the history that clearly shows gays prey on the weakest members of society, if it is in a way that heterosexuals do not also do.

Also, I can't recall if you ever answered the question about what, exactly, constitutes a sexual deviant to you? I believe you were asked that in this thread because you have been using the phrase so often for gays and said that sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve. With any number of sexual foibles or fetishes practiced by heterosexuals that could be considered deviant, I would like to know if anyone other than gays counts as a sexual deviant in your mind. If you have answered the question previously and I either forgot or missed it, I apologize.

There are some rational concerns I have heard about allowing gays to serve openly. You, however, seem to base your opposition on irrational ones. Your arguments appear to boil down to, 'I don't like gays, so keep them out'.

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.

 

[yota5]

I see you didn't answer my question. I asked WHY gays will be in control, not if they will be. As gays are a fairly small percentage of the population, in order for them to be in control they would need to have a much larger portion of their population at higher rank than the straight population, yes? If that is true, you seem to be either saying that gays can perform well in the military in order to obtain those ranks, which seems to make your arguments invalid, or you are saying that the military is going to promote gays in large enough numbers to have control of the system despite their supposedly negative effects, which says bad things about the state of the military anyway. Either way, you are contradicting your own argument that gays do not make good soldiers.

As it happens, I am not gay. However, since you obviously consider gays to be lesser people, and you are pretty clearly an idiot when it comes to this issue, I will take your assumption that I am gay as a compliment. By the same basic rationale, I consider your take on my intelligence a compliment.

I have no problem acknowledging that clergy have been involved in a number of cases of abuse. However, I have a few issues with using that as an example of homosexuals being predators. There is a question of how many of those abuses were homosexual in nature. There is a question of whether the abusers were driven by homosexuality or not (there is a school of thought that, like rape, sexual child abuse is about power and control rather than sexual attraction). Even if I were to accept that every member of the clergy that abused a child were a homosexual, there is a question of whether that is evidence of the nature of all homosexuals, or if there are other factors at play, such as the sexual repression which is so often a part of being a member of the clergy. There is a question of whether members of the religions whose clergy abuse children should also be considered predators. Finally, I question whether a tendency to abuse children will translate to abuses of adult soldiers.

I'm pretty sure I haven't clearly stated my point of view, but I'll ignore that for now. You ask for historical precedent. If I remember correctly, there have been multiple occasions in this thread in which you have been presented with a list of US allies which allow openly gay soldiers to serve. Perhaps it is recent history, but if those nations have not seen a reduction in military readiness since allowing gays to serve openly, that seems a clear precedent. In response, I would like to ask you for any historical precedent showing that openly serving gays are a detriment to a military force.

I would also like to see the history that clearly shows gays prey on the weakest members of society, if it is in a way that heterosexuals do not also do.

Also, I can't recall if you ever answered the question about what, exactly, constitutes a sexual deviant to you? I believe you were asked that in this thread because you have been using the phrase so often for gays and said that sexual deviants should not be allowed to serve. With any number of sexual foibles or fetishes practiced by heterosexuals that could be considered deviant, I would like to know if anyone other than gays counts as a sexual deviant in your mind. If you have answered the question previously and I either forgot or missed it, I apologize.

There are some rational concerns I have heard about allowing gays to serve openly. You, however, seem to base your opposition on irrational ones. Your arguments appear to boil down to, 'I don't like gays, so keep them out'.

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.

 

[Spoonman]

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