There are a lot more cases of rape reported in the military by heterosexual soldiers. Again, we can join the rest of the world by not discriminating, or we can continue to sell our military short. If you don’t like gays in the military, enlist.
charlie555 attacks our honorable men and women in uniform. Pathetic.
He also equates statement of orientation with lust. That must mean, automatically, that everyone who says they are “straight” is unable to sacrifice their lust for their uniform. The lack of intelligence in this logic is dismal and worrying.
Beebee Doodle says;
Sooky told me about that musical he saw named “Fur”. You humans made a human version of it and called it “Hair”. Check the song “White Boys” on YouTube.
How ironic to see the macho top soldiers act so….gay
church, what you’re ignoring is that, with all the years of debate and controversy that preceeded those other countries’ adoption of non-discriminatory enlistment, none of the feared beakdowns or disruptions occurred once the decisions were made. Surely that must be taken into account as well.
Are you saying that every nation needs to invent the wheel for itself?
Churchy, you’re obviously not talking about blood-lust. Otherwise, none of the Marines would be qualified to serve, according to your definition. If all “straights” curb their lust at the door, why do the MPs have to go around to brothels and strip joints to drag the guys out? I agree with Jade. Your comment is pathetic and simply serves to emphasize your homophobia.
I hate to break it to you, Charlie 5’er, but the ONE profession that profits most from the travels of those “deployed” troops, is the “oldest profession”! THE number one casualty producer in America’s wars has been the spread of venereal diseases! When the 1st Cavalry at An Khe had “clean and kept clean” prostitutes in “Sin City”, we had the lowest VD rate in U.S. Army history. Colliers magazine ran an article describing the “facility”. The “blue nose” religious right got the “establishment” shut down, and in the noble tradition of the U.S. Army, the 1st Cavalry soon met the demand of history and had nearly the highest VD rate in Viet Nam!
Lust from the right is blood lust, but don’t use your “gun”, for recreation.
do we really believe that homosexual men (and women in later years) have never served our country in the military over the decades? couldn’t we just thank them - they’ve given no less than ranked intelligencia and the butch hunks who served
CHARLIE555 -
i truly do not think that your beliefs will profit people (not
“ma/en”) at this point in time.
if no one on this planet dared to think out of the Book, MAYBE we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in, but, since we are we have to handle it on its level.
your belief is based on faith - just like the people who voted for obama - faith.
obama’s only been working on the problem for two years, “god’s” been working on it for centuries.
If Harry Truman were president, he’d have wiped out “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell the Truth” by now. Imagine what would have happened in the eighteenth century had Baron von Steuben or James Wolf had been exposed. Let’s not forget Richard the Lionhearted and the bad press Edward II received in “Bravehert”.
Guys fantasize about girl on girl sex, therefore lesbians in the military is no problem at all. Whenever people talk about gays in a negative light, it’s always using men.
Jade; Better yet; some straights simply point out that anal sex is gross and therefore, gays are gross. Yet you just can’t find a straight porn flick without an anal scene.
Eeeh…It’s still anal people! What comes out of there still isn’t candy!
church: “FRITZ: So is it your position that since other countries already had the debate within their country, the matter is settled and we shouldn’t? (And we only get to know the statistics on breakdowns and disruptions that they decide to share with us.)”
As has been pointed out above, we HAVE been having the debate. It’s the same objections being raised again and again and again, stall stall stall. The arguments against it are all “This MIGHT happen, that MIGHT happen”; it can’t be argued that these things CERTAINLY WILL happen, because in those countries which allow gays to openly served the same “mights” were thrown around before the fact and they have not occurred. And believe me, if there WERE the systematic breakdowns and disruptions that the doomsayers are prophesying, we would be aware of it. A nation’s army falling apart isn’t something that can be easily hidden. Would I expect there to be a few bumps in the road? Yeah. Nothing’s perfect. No doubt there were problems when the military was officially desegregated as well, but it was the right thing to do whenever it was done, and once it was done it became a non-issue fairly soon.
“Besides, why should I look to some other country for the correct thing to do? I’m not a liberal Supreme Court Justice looking at some other countries’ Constitution for guidance, am I?”
That’s nonsensical. I might as well ask you “Why should the U.S. be required to engage in endless hand-wringing just because other countries did the same?” Read my post again. I asked whether other nations’ successes ought not to be taken into account, not blindly followed. As you said, the arguments in the other countries followed the same lines as our own. They went ahead and did it anyway, and the world didn’t end. If there “must” be further study, surely the examples of other nations’ experiences must be a large part of the study.
The arguments in favor of allowing gays to serve openly are compelling, not just on principle but based on observation of other armies. The end-of-the-world arguments AGAINST it are flimsy, and speculative besides. How it will all play out is something that nobody can (or ever will) predict with any certainty, no matter how many years/decades of further “debate” (read “stalling”). It seems to me that, given what we’ve seen elsewhere, the burden of proof is on those against Gays in the Military to show how (and WHY) our own results would be DIFFERENT.
The REAL problem is that a friend pointed out last night she can’t think of a time without war, and she’s older than I. It isn’t DADT, but TNT (and more “modern” formulations) that is the problem.
rottenprat over 13 years ago
Those scrawny bodies look more like politicians than soldiers.
SaltWaterCroc over 13 years ago
There are a lot more cases of rape reported in the military by heterosexual soldiers. Again, we can join the rest of the world by not discriminating, or we can continue to sell our military short. If you don’t like gays in the military, enlist.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
charlie555 attacks our honorable men and women in uniform. Pathetic.
He also equates statement of orientation with lust. That must mean, automatically, that everyone who says they are “straight” is unable to sacrifice their lust for their uniform. The lack of intelligence in this logic is dismal and worrying.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
Beebee Doodle says; Sooky told me about that musical he saw named “Fur”. You humans made a human version of it and called it “Hair”. Check the song “White Boys” on YouTube.
How ironic to see the macho top soldiers act so….gay
worldisacomic over 13 years ago
I believe he is waiting for them to salute!
Hawthorne over 13 years ago
Here it seems to be happening with decades of debate …
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
Churchy,
You should do some research on this issue.
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
church, what you’re ignoring is that, with all the years of debate and controversy that preceeded those other countries’ adoption of non-discriminatory enlistment, none of the feared beakdowns or disruptions occurred once the decisions were made. Surely that must be taken into account as well.
Are you saying that every nation needs to invent the wheel for itself?
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
King Charles II: “Why shouldn’t we have women on stage? After all, the French have been doing it for years.”
Sir Edward Hyde: “Whenever we’re about to do something truly horrible, we always say that the French have been doing it for years.”
– Stage Beauty
Bluejayz over 13 years ago
Churchy, you’re obviously not talking about blood-lust. Otherwise, none of the Marines would be qualified to serve, according to your definition. If all “straights” curb their lust at the door, why do the MPs have to go around to brothels and strip joints to drag the guys out? I agree with Jade. Your comment is pathetic and simply serves to emphasize your homophobia.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
LOL!!!! “cannot satisfy their lust”!!!
I hate to break it to you, Charlie 5’er, but the ONE profession that profits most from the travels of those “deployed” troops, is the “oldest profession”! THE number one casualty producer in America’s wars has been the spread of venereal diseases! When the 1st Cavalry at An Khe had “clean and kept clean” prostitutes in “Sin City”, we had the lowest VD rate in U.S. Army history. Colliers magazine ran an article describing the “facility”. The “blue nose” religious right got the “establishment” shut down, and in the noble tradition of the U.S. Army, the 1st Cavalry soon met the demand of history and had nearly the highest VD rate in Viet Nam!
Lust from the right is blood lust, but don’t use your “gun”, for recreation.
“Cannot satisfy their lust”, hilarious!!
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
Senor; don’t forget pro sports team! ^_^
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
Churchy,
Very slick…
parkersinthehouse over 13 years ago
do we really believe that homosexual men (and women in later years) have never served our country in the military over the decades? couldn’t we just thank them - they’ve given no less than ranked intelligencia and the butch hunks who served
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Super, the blue exudate from a “Port-a-potty” is also “slick”.
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
trout,
I’ll take your word for it.
kreole over 13 years ago
The only thing that matters is will having openly gay military men improve our military?
myming over 13 years ago
CHARLIE555 - i truly do not think that your beliefs will profit people (not “ma/en”) at this point in time. if no one on this planet dared to think out of the Book, MAYBE we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in, but, since we are we have to handle it on its level. your belief is based on faith - just like the people who voted for obama - faith. obama’s only been working on the problem for two years, “god’s” been working on it for centuries.
see what i’m sayin’ ? 8-)
VegaAlopex over 13 years ago
If Harry Truman were president, he’d have wiped out “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell the Truth” by now. Imagine what would have happened in the eighteenth century had Baron von Steuben or James Wolf had been exposed. Let’s not forget Richard the Lionhearted and the bad press Edward II received in “Bravehert”.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“What about the Ladies?”
Guys fantasize about girl on girl sex, therefore lesbians in the military is no problem at all. Whenever people talk about gays in a negative light, it’s always using men.CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
Jade; Better yet; some straights simply point out that anal sex is gross and therefore, gays are gross. Yet you just can’t find a straight porn flick without an anal scene.
Eeeh…It’s still anal people! What comes out of there still isn’t candy!
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
Whatever gay folks do, straight people do it too.
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
church: “FRITZ: So is it your position that since other countries already had the debate within their country, the matter is settled and we shouldn’t? (And we only get to know the statistics on breakdowns and disruptions that they decide to share with us.)”
As has been pointed out above, we HAVE been having the debate. It’s the same objections being raised again and again and again, stall stall stall. The arguments against it are all “This MIGHT happen, that MIGHT happen”; it can’t be argued that these things CERTAINLY WILL happen, because in those countries which allow gays to openly served the same “mights” were thrown around before the fact and they have not occurred. And believe me, if there WERE the systematic breakdowns and disruptions that the doomsayers are prophesying, we would be aware of it. A nation’s army falling apart isn’t something that can be easily hidden. Would I expect there to be a few bumps in the road? Yeah. Nothing’s perfect. No doubt there were problems when the military was officially desegregated as well, but it was the right thing to do whenever it was done, and once it was done it became a non-issue fairly soon.
“Besides, why should I look to some other country for the correct thing to do? I’m not a liberal Supreme Court Justice looking at some other countries’ Constitution for guidance, am I?”
That’s nonsensical. I might as well ask you “Why should the U.S. be required to engage in endless hand-wringing just because other countries did the same?” Read my post again. I asked whether other nations’ successes ought not to be taken into account, not blindly followed. As you said, the arguments in the other countries followed the same lines as our own. They went ahead and did it anyway, and the world didn’t end. If there “must” be further study, surely the examples of other nations’ experiences must be a large part of the study.
The arguments in favor of allowing gays to serve openly are compelling, not just on principle but based on observation of other armies. The end-of-the-world arguments AGAINST it are flimsy, and speculative besides. How it will all play out is something that nobody can (or ever will) predict with any certainty, no matter how many years/decades of further “debate” (read “stalling”). It seems to me that, given what we’ve seen elsewhere, the burden of proof is on those against Gays in the Military to show how (and WHY) our own results would be DIFFERENT.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
The REAL problem is that a friend pointed out last night she can’t think of a time without war, and she’s older than I. It isn’t DADT, but TNT (and more “modern” formulations) that is the problem.