The #1 reason why Gays should not serve

[HogTrash]

Men and women are not housed together nor do they toilet, dress or shower together for the same reason that gays should not serve in the military.

Normal people can not help but consider the opposite sex as sexual objects just as homosexuals can not help but consider the same sex as sexual objects.

It is impossible for men and women to not look upon each other as sexual objects as would be the case with gay men living in close quarters with non-gay men.

If I were to live in a barracks where women were getting dressed and undressed and runniing around in their underwear I could not help but get aroused.

If I were to shower with a bunch of wet and soaped-up women, I could not help but get sexually aroused, especially when I was a young man.....BOING!

A homosexual running around the shower with an erection, full of men he's supposed to have a close military comradery with would no doubt cause serious conflict.

[Luna Tick]

If I were to shower with a bunch of wet and soaped-up women, I could not help but get sexually aroused, especially when I was a young man.....BOING!

Okay, I was understanding your post just fine until you quoted the name of a jet airplane maker. I don't get it. What do they have to do with gays in the military? And I thought our military planes were made by McDonnell Douglas anyway.

[darin]

maybe if we just focused on getting gays the mental help they need to cope with their urges, we'd all be better-served.

[Noir]

OMG!
you mean you may see anoter mans errection!!!!!

Also, what of lesbians? Afterall they disply no physical disply of arousal.

[HogTrash]

Okay, I was understanding your post just fine until you quoted the name of a jet airplane maker. I don't get it. What do they have to do with gays in the military? And I thought our military planes were made by McDonnell Douglas anyway.It has to do with ballistics Luna.

I'll explain in more detail when you're older.

[emmett]

OMG!
you mean you may see anoter mans errection!!!!!

Also, what of lesbians? Afterall they disply no physical disply of arousal.



I would have to think that you have never seen a female aroused Noir so I won;t even go into it.

:laugh2:

[Noir]

I would have to think that you have never seen a female aroused Noir so I won;t even go into it.

:laugh2:

I know you're playin joky softly catchy monkey, but srsly. Women can get errect nipples from merely the cold or a memory being triggered in there mind sub-conciously. And you'd have to be pretty eagle eyed to notice any change in the vulva from a couple of metres.

But as usual whitetrash is spouting tosh in the name of 'making the world a better place' =/

[HogTrash]

We know only what we have seen and been told.

I am 58 years old and have personally witnessed the best and worst of the generation before mine, my generation of course, my childrens generation and now your generation...I have 58 years of befores and afters on which to base my opinions.

While your beliefs are based on what?...The things you have been taught in your modern adjusted history books?...The facts according to your capitalist hating, marxist professors?...The picture your liberal media has painted of history?

Consider your age, consider my age, consider personal observations and consider common sense...If you can successfully complete this simple mental task, you will understand the groundless foundation of your beliefs.

[Noir]

We know only what we have seen and been told.

I am 58 years old and have personally witnessed the best and worst of the generation before mine, my generation of course, my childrens generation and now your generation...I have 58 years of befores and afters on which to base my opinions.

While your beliefs are based on what?...The things you have been taught in your modern adjusted history books?...The facts according to your capitalist hating, marxist professors?...The picture your liberal media has painted of history?

Consider your age, consider my age, consider personal observations and consider common sense...If you can successfully complete this simple mental task, you will understand the groundless foundation of your beliefs.


Take about grasping at straws mate, obviously you're older ergo you are right. xD

So if I get my Granda on the site, and he disagrees with you, the he will be right and you will be wrong? Afterall he's in his 70's...

Don't bother to bore me with your observations if your gonna harp on about how your age somehow means you don't have to address the points in my post,

[crin63]

The #1 reason why Gays should not serve

That they're gay is a good enough reason for me. Send them back to the closet they came from.

[Noir]

That they're gay is a good enough reason for me. Send them back to the closet they came from.


Well said sir, and while they're at it, send the niggers back to the cotton fields, right?

/sark

[HogTrash]

Well said sir, and while they're at it, send the niggers back to the cotton fields, right?

/sarkIf we only knew then what we know now!

[crin63]

Well said sir, and while they're at it, send the niggers back to the cotton fields, right?

/sark

Quite the racist aren't you sonny boy!

[-Cp]

Men and women are not housed together nor do they toilet, dress or shower together for the same reason that gays should not serve in the military.

Normal people can not help but consider the opposite sex as sexual objects just as homosexuals can not help but consider the same sex as sexual objects.

It is impossible for men and women to not look upon each other as sexual objects as would be the case with gay men living in close quarters with non-gay men.

If I were to live in a barracks where women were getting dressed and undressed and runniing around in their underwear I could not help but get aroused.

If I were to shower with a bunch of wet and soaped-up women, I could not help but get sexually aroused, especially when I was a young man.....BOING!

A homosexual running around the shower with an erection, full of men he's supposed to have a close military comradery with would no doubt cause serious conflict.

I can think of PLENTY of women who would not get me aroused all wet and soapy.... In fact, they should leave their friggin clothes on..

[Noir]

Quite the racist aren't you sonny boy!


I do hope you note the sarcastic tone of my post, else your above post is dripping in irony to the point of laughable,

[-Cp]

Well said sir, and while they're at it, send the niggers back to the cotton fields, right?

/sark

Comparing one's skin color to another's behavioral choice is stupid...

[Noir]

Comparing one's skin color to another's behavioral choice is stupid...

Asumming that all who are gay are so through choice is stupid. While I do believe that some do through choice, aka bi-sexauls and pan-sexuals, I do not believe it's a lifestyle chose for all. And in all honestly neither of us truly know, and so we must rely on people who are gay, some of which say it's a choice of theirs, most of witch say it's been with them from birth.

[HogTrash]

Take about grasping at straws mate, obviously you're older ergo you are right. xD

So if I get my Granda on the site, and he disagrees with you, the he will be right and you will be wrong? Afterall he's in his 70's...

Don't bother to bore me with your observations if your gonna harp on about how your age somehow means you don't have to address the points in my post,If your "Granda" believes as you, that would make him an old liberal which indicates he aged without wising up.

Most liberals do wise up with age unless they continue their whole life thinking with their emotions instead of their minds.

I suppose it's possible he's an old hard-core marxist...Are you positive your "Granda" agrees with your immature political liberalism.

You should double-check with the old man to varify your assumptions before trashing his intelligence and common sense any further, Noir.

[Noir]

If your "Granda" believes as you, that would make him an old liberal which indicates he aged without wising up.

Most liberals do wise up with age unless they continue their whole life thinking with their emotions instead of their minds.

I suppose it's possible he's an old hard-core marxist...Are you positive your "Granda" agrees with your immature political liberalism.

You should double-check with the old man to varify your assumptions before trashing his intelligence and common sense any further, Noir.

I know not what my granda thinks on such matters, and have no intent on finding out, ibwas merely posing it to see your response, and you replied as expected.

Basicly you believe that I am young, ergo stupid, and you with more years behind you are obviously wiser, and thus if I disagree with you on an issue them I am wrong. Buuuuut if there was someone else who is old than you, and they disagree with you, then they are also wrong, and there age is no factor.

To put it simpliy, you are right and that's that. Sometimes you try and 'prove' that you are right, in this instance bringing up my age, but when then confronted on the age issue you fold away and revert to the fact that age doesn't really matter, because you are right anyway.

Srsly dude you're a joke.

[HogTrash]

I know not what my granda thinks on such matters, and have no intent on finding out, ibwas merely posing it to see your response, and you replied as expected.

Basicly you believe that I am young, ergo stupid, and you with more years behind you are obviously wiser, and thus if I disagree with you on an issue them I am wrong. Buuuuut if there was someone else who is old than you, and they disagree with you, then they are also wrong, and there age is no factor.

To put it simpliy, you are right and that's that. Sometimes you try and 'prove' that you are right, in this instance bringing up my age, but when then confronted on the age issue you fold away and revert to the fact that age doesn't really matter, because you are right anyway.

Srsly dude you're a joke.It is a well known fact that liberals reason with their emotions rather than their minds.

I also know for a fact that many liberals out-grow their liberalism...Usually more men than women.

[Mr. P]

There is NO reason gays should not serve. They have honorably served for over 200 yrs without being an issue.

[Noir]

It is a well known fact that liberals reason with their emotions rather than their minds.

I also know for a fact that many liberals out-grow their liberalism...Usually more men than women.

srslylmfaololbbq,

Damn dude, you got called out and then had the brass to quot the post and not address it at all but harp on some one-liners older than even you.

Enough off-topic posts, I had hoped that in spelling out the stupidity of yor arguement would atleast make you think about why you believe what you believe, and thus bring about better debate, but even when it is spelt out to ya you continue on, and thus only prove futher what I was saying.

So unless you are willing to debate homosexuals in the service then I am done with you from this thread.

[Kathianne]

There is NO reason gays should not serve. They have honorably served for over 200 yrs without being an issue.

Agreed. While keeping their mouths shut. Clinton was right on this.

[HogTrash]

There is NO reason gays should not serve. They have honorably served for over 200 yrs without being an issue.What about the reason I posted in the header?

It sounds viable to me...Would you care to rebut it?

[Mr. P]

What about the reason I posted in the header?

It sounds viable to me...Would you care to rebut it?

My post is all about rebuting your OP. It's idiotic and you know it.

Rebut the fact that gays have served for over 200 yrs without major problems. Hell, you probably knew some. I'll bet they never tried to grab yer ass either...was that a disappointment? Is that where your disdain flows from?

[Mr. P]

Agreed. While keeping their mouths shut. Clinton was right on this.

I wouldn't give Bill credit..they pretty much always keep silent in my time. That was way before Bill.

[Kathianne]

I wouldn't give Bill credit..they pretty much always keep silent in my time. That was way before Bill.

But he did "crystallize" it.

[Mr. P]

But he did "crystallize" it.

He made it an issue that it never was..that's for sure.

[Kathianne]

He made it an issue that it never was..that's for sure.

Yep

[HogTrash]

Originally Posted by Mr. P
My post is all about rebuting your OP. It's idiotic and you know it.
I've seen no rebutal of my opening post.


Rebut the fact that gays have served for over 200 yrs without major problems. Hell, you probably knew some. I'll bet they never tried to grab yer ass either...was that a disappointment? Is that where your disdain flows from?
When I served, homosexuality was still recognized as a sick perversion so queers stayed well hidden.

I probably served with child molesters and a few farm boys who romanced some of their daddy's sheep as well.

I remember one sick pervert who claimed he had been a morticians apprentice and bragged about the joys of necrophilia.

[Mr. P]

I've seen no rebutal of my opening post.

READ between the lines.
When I served, homosexuality was still recognized as a sick perversion so queers stayed well hidden.

I probably served with child molesters and a few farm boys who romanced some of their daddy's sheep as well.

I remember one sick pervert who claimed he had been a morticians apprentice and bragged about the joys of necrophilia.

All that has what to do with the OP?

[HogTrash]

All that has what to do with the OP?You stated that I probably served with homos so I simply agreed and pointed out that I probably served with alot of perverts of various types.

I'm surprised I had to explain this to you...My post seemed very explicit and easy to interpret to me.

[Mr. P]

You stated that I probably served with homos so I simply agreed and pointed out that I probably served with alot of perverts of various types.

I'm surprised I had to explain this to you...My post seemed very explicit and easy to interpret to me.

And they negatively affected your service, how?

Justify the OP and stop the tap dance, please.

[HogTrash]

And they negatively affected your service, how?

Justify the OP and stop the tap dance, please.You actually can't see how rediculous your question is?

Are you by any chance gay?

[HogTrash]

Even though it's beautiful, my butt is EXIT ONLY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTDGYOtH4oo&feature=related

[Mr. P]

You actually can't see how rediculous your question is?

Are you by any chance gay?

What's really ridiculous is your failure to support the BS in the OP.

As far as the question about my sexual preference..I wonder why you'd ask. Is there some deep down attraction you may be suppressing? Or is it simply deflection?

[HogTrash]

What's really ridiculous is your failure to support the BS in the OP.I see no sense in explaining the obvious.


As far as the question about my sexual preference..I wonder why you'd ask. Is there some deep down attraction you may be suppressing? Or is it simply deflection? Same ole cleeshey gay bullshit.

You boys need some new material, cupcake.

[Luna Tick]

.... Most liberals do wise up with age unless they continue their whole life thinking with their emotions instead of their minds. ...........

As opposed to conservatives who are fountains of logic and reason.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

Here's an example of conservative rational thought.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIYbmNql6MI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIYbmNql6MI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[DragonStryk72]

Men and women are not housed together nor do they toilet, dress or shower together for the same reason that gays should not serve in the military.

Normal people can not help but consider the opposite sex as sexual objects just as homosexuals can not help but consider the same sex as sexual objects.

It is impossible for men and women to not look upon each other as sexual objects as would be the case with gay men living in close quarters with non-gay men.

If I were to live in a barracks where women were getting dressed and undressed and runniing around in their underwear I could not help but get aroused.

If I were to shower with a bunch of wet and soaped-up women, I could not help but get sexually aroused, especially when I was a young man.....BOING!

A homosexual running around the shower with an erection, full of men he's supposed to have a close military comradery with would no doubt cause serious conflict.

Wow, okay, so my sister is a sexual object to me? Wow, just wow. Seriously, just cause you can't keep it in your pants does not constrain every man in the world to the same weakling fate as you. And if you are about to counter my intial question, then you have lampooned your own argument, as the arguments would admit that there are different classifications of women. Being a guy, there are a number of women I simply wouldn't sleep with, nor have i had any desire to do so. This is referred to as self-control, and it works wonders, it really does.

Having been in the military, let me tell you this: Aside from in Boot, the showers are not communal, they have stalls, meaning that this part of your argument actually holds no water. And seriously, in boot, you don't have the time or energy to be thinking about. I saw a guy piss in the shower in boot, and that was a much more crass display than someone having an erection.

Christ, the right vibration on a bus can get a guy hard as a rock, it's not a difficult instrument to get motivated most the time.

[DragonStryk72]

If your "Granda" believes as you, that would make him an old liberal which indicates he aged without wising up.

Most liberals do wise up with age unless they continue their whole life thinking with their emotions instead of their minds.

I suppose it's possible he's an old hard-core marxist...Are you positive your "Granda" agrees with your immature political liberalism.

You should double-check with the old man to varify your assumptions before trashing his intelligence and common sense any further, Noir.

Oh good, I was hoping you would make that argument. now folks, as we see here, Hog's initial assertion that he must be right simply by point of age has been popped, and so either he must do one of two things. 1) Sack up, and concede Noir's point, rendering his former post obsolete, or 2) Attempt to Neutralize Noir's Granddad as being unusable, without any relevant information about his granddad, thus allowing Hog to continue his argument without having to actually examine anything about himself.

See, it's a weak argument, one used by someone who has not the ability to truly argue their own point, because their argument, however convicted it might be, has no actual strength to it.

[DragonStryk72]

Alright, Hog, I directly, without question, rebutted your OP, so grow a spine, and let's hear it.

[HogTrash]

Alright, Hog, I directly, without question, rebutted your OP, so grow a spine, and let's hear it.Is the below post what you are referring to as a "rebuttal"?


Wow, okay, so my sister is a sexual object to me? Wow, just wow. Seriously, just cause you can't keep it in your pants does not constrain every man in the world to the same weakling fate as you. And if you are about to counter my intial question, then you have lampooned your own argument, as the arguments would admit that there are different classifications of women. Being a guy, there are a number of women I simply wouldn't sleep with, nor have i had any desire to do so. This is referred to as self-control, and it works wonders, it really does.

Having been in the military, let me tell you this: Aside from in Boot, the showers are not communal, they have stalls, meaning that this part of your argument actually holds no water. And seriously, in boot, you don't have the time or energy to be thinking about. I saw a guy piss in the shower in boot, and that was a much more crass display than someone having an erection.

Christ, the right vibration on a bus can get a guy hard as a rock, it's not a difficult instrument to get motivated most the time.Let's break it down to make it simple for you, cupcake.


Wow, okay, so my sister is a sexual object to me? Wow, just wow."Wow, just wow" is right!...I can't believe you're seriously using your sister as an argument for your point of view so I'll mercifully skip over this...Tell your sister she can thank me later.


Seriously, just cause you can't keep it in your pants does not constrain every man in the world to the same weakling fate as you. And if you are about to counter my intial question, then you have lampooned your own argument, as the arguments would admit that there are different classifications of women. Being a guy, there are a number of women I simply wouldn't sleep with, nor have i had any desire to do so. This is referred to as self-control, and it works wonders, it really does.You go to the DOD and tell them you can keep it in your pants and you have amazing self control and there are many women you wouldn't sleep with and explain to them in light of this new information if they would consider changing their policy and begin co-habitating the men and women in the same barracks and other facilities.

Good luck with that.


Having been in the military, let me tell you this: Aside from in Boot, the showers are not communal, they have stalls, meaning that this part of your argument actually holds no water. And seriously, in boot, you don't have the time or energy to be thinking about. I saw a guy piss in the shower in boot, and that was a much more crass display than someone having an erection.I never saw a shower stall in the USMC, it was communal my entire tour of duty but I imagine I served before you or at least in a different branch...Use some common sense, einstein.

Shower stalls makes no difference because the point is still the same...The same reason men and women are not barracksed together is the same reason homos should be seperated from real men.


Christ, the right vibration on a bus can get a guy hard as a rock, it's not a difficult instrument to get motivated most the time.Whatever blows your skirt up, sunshine...Just keep in mind, real men don't wanna be around you tootie fruities and the women who do are called fag-hags.

Leave the boys alone king kong...dicks arfer chicks.

[Binky]

Hog....If I were to shower with a bunch of wet and soaped-up women, I could not help but get sexually aroused, especially when I was a young man.....BOING!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Geez Hog, I could've gone all day without that visual....Thanks to you, your boinging boinger is now going to be embedded in my brain...... :eek:

[chloe]

Hog....If I were to shower with a bunch of wet and soaped-up women, I could not help but get sexually aroused, especially when I was a young man.....BOING!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Geez Hog, I could've gone all day without that visual....Thanks to you, your boinging boinger is now going to be embedded in my brain...... :eek:

:laugh2:

[glockmail]

What's really ridiculous is your failure to support the BS in the OP.

As far as the question about my sexual preference..I wonder why you'd ask. Is there some deep down attraction you may be suppressing? Or is it simply deflection?

Come on P you're a douchebag for using this tactic: folks who abhor queers are closet queers. Grow the fuck up.

[Mr. P]

Come on P you're a douchebag for using this tactic: folks who abhor queers are closet queers. Grow the fuck up.

So you're saying you can back up the OP? Or are you reverting to name calling tactic also because ya just ain't got nothin?

[glockmail]

So you're saying you can back up the OP? Or are you reverting to name calling tactic also because ya just ain't got nothin?

How ironic. You're the one "name calling" with baseless allegations and your silly tactic. And it's not my responsibility to "back up" the OP.

Personally I don't think queers belong in the military unless they can keep a lid on it.

[Mr. P]

How ironic. You're the one "name calling" with baseless allegations and your silly tactic. And it's not my responsibility to "back up" the OP.

Personally I don't think queers belong in the military unless they can keep a lid on it.

Perhaps you should read the whole thread and quote the post I "name called" on. I'll give ya a hint though...I didn't.

As far as the OP back up..you jumped into this fray..so if you were not prepared I can't help you.

I'm glad to see that you agree with me and there is no reason to keep gays from serving as long as they keep a lid on it. Which they do BTW.

[glockmail]

Perhaps you should read the whole thread and quote the post I "name called" on. I'll give ya a hint though...I didn't.

As far as the OP back up..you jumped into this fray..so if you were not prepared I can't help you.

I'm glad to see that you agree with me and there is no reason to keep gays from serving as long as they keep a lid on it. Which they do BTW. The "name calling" is you assertion that one who doesn't agree with you about gays must be gay himself.

[Mr. P]

The "name calling" is you assertion that one who doesn't agree with you about gays must be gay himself.


As far as the question about my sexual preference..I wonder why you'd ask. Is there some deep down attraction you may be suppressing? Or is it simply deflection?

Read it Glock..see those "?" thinges? Means it was a question.

Stop being a troll.

[glockmail]

Read it Glock..see those "?" thinges? Means it was a question.

Stop being a troll.

Sure 'just a question'. It was an assertion; a tired tactic of asserting that someone must be gay because they don't agree with you about gays.

I don't think queers are normal, natural, healthy, moral and that same bullshit has been tried on me many, many times.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. But I feel strongly that homo's should not be allowed to serve *at all*.
2. And if one is found out, he should be *shit canned*.
3. Just my opinion, and I'd like to share it right now.
4. Don't go all teary eyed over over this, homo's are a disgrace to humanity.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Mr. P]

Sure 'just a question'. It was an assertion; a tired tactic of asserting that someone must be gay because they don't agree with you about gays.

I don't think queers are normal, natural, healthy, moral and that same bullshit has been tried on me many, many times.

Think what you will Glock, I asked two questions..neither were answered. Go figure.

[glockmail]

Think what you will Glock, I asked two questions..neither were answered. Go figure. Gee, lemme ask one similar. Are you gay? :slap:

[Mr. P]

Gee, lemme ask one similar. Are you gay? :slap:

Not that it is any of your business..but Nope. And I still think gays should be able to serve. Disappointed?

[glockmail]

Not that it is any of your business..but Nope. And I still think gays should be able to serve. Disappointed? Not at all, as it was a stupid question and not worth answering. I don't care if you're queer or not. ;)

[Noir]

Sorry bout that,


1. But I feel strongly that homo's should not be allowed to serve *at all*.
2. And if one is found out, he should be *shit canned*.
3. Just my opinion, and I'd like to share it right now.
4. Don't go all teary eyed over over this, homo's are a disgrace to humanity.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1.I feel strongly that meat eaters should not be allowed to serve *at all*
2.and if one is found out they should be *shit canned*
3.Just my opinion, and i'd like to share it right now.
4.Don't get all teary eyed over this, meat-eaters are a disgrace to humanity

Maybe one day well have a hetro-veggie army that can really protect us. Rather than the homo-murderers we have now. Right?

And before Glock asks, I am a raging homo-sexual, I'm never without atleast 2 or 3 cocks in me at any one time.

Disclaimer- Only an idiot would take anything in this post seriously,

[Mr. P]

Not at all, as it was a stupid question and not worth answering. I don't care if you're queer or not. ;)

Do you ask stupid questions unrelated to a specific post often?

Errr never mind I know you do. :slap:

[jimnyc]

I will let someone else add my 2 cents...

About those writing this article, and I believe they've earned the right to speak their 2 cents:

Retired Army Gen. James J. Lindsay was the first commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. Retired Adm. Jerome Johnson was vice chief of naval operations. Retired Lt. Gen. E.G. "Buck" Shuler Jr. was commander of the Strategic Air Command's 8th Air Force. Retired Gen. Joseph J. Went was assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. They are founding members of Flag and General Officers for the Military.


With the nation engaged in two wars and facing a number of potential adversaries, this is no time to weaken our military. Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.

The administration and some in Congress have pledged to repeal Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10, which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Often confused with the "don't ask, don't tell" regulations issued by President Bill Clinton, this statute establishes several reasons that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

Section 654 recognizes that the military is a "specialized society" that is "fundamentally different from civilian life." It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands "extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense." The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy."

While there have been changes in civilian society since this statute was adopted by wide bipartisan majorities in 1993, the military realities it describes abide. If anything, they are more acute in wartime.

In our experience, and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who have joined us in signing an open letter to President Obama and Congress, repeal of this law would prompt many dedicated people to leave the military. Polling by Military Times of its active-duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal. In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not reenlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.

If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people -- more than the total of today's active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.

And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.

We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways. Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations. There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.

Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America's armed forces are models for our allies' militaries and the envy of our adversaries -- not the other way around.

As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military. The burden should be on proponents of repeal to demonstrate how their initiative would improve these qualities of our armed services. This they cannot do.

Consequently, our recent open letter advised America's elected leaders: "We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The issue is not one of individual desires, or of the norms and mores of civilian society. Rather, the question is one of national security and the discipline, morale, readiness and culture of the U.S. armed forces upon which that security depends. It is a question we cannot afford to answer in a way that breaks our military.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041402704.html

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Enough said! Excellent find Jimmy!!! :clap:

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Jims post is good, but its full of double talk.
2. On the one hand I agree with it, on the other hand I don't.
3. So, its post neutral to this old dude.
4. I liked the part about dumping the Clintonistas *Don't Ask Don't Tell*
5. Oh and Noir that was some what funny, liked the numbering thing you had going there.:laugh2:



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[glockmail]

Do you ask stupid questions unrelated to a specific post often?

Errr never mind I know you do. :slap: LOL You old queer enabler! :lol:

[Caveat]

I'm glad to see that you agree with me and there is no reason to keep gays from serving as long as they keep a lid on it. Which they do BTW.
Gays are allowed in the military right now as long as they Do not ask and do not tell. I mean really if you don't have to ask if they are gay ,it's just very obvious, then its a distraction right?

[SassyLady]

The number one reason should be whether the majority of military men and women object or not, and screw the rest. The current soldiers, sailors and airmen deserve to decide who they want to go into battle with.

[gabosaurus]

Hogtrash, crin and glock have a lot in common with gays. All of them are huge pains in the ass.

[HogTrash]

Hogtrash, crin and glock have a lot in common with gays. All of them are huge pains in the ass.I have absolutely nothing in common with those sick twisted, desease infested, disgusting nasty ass perverts.

And if these sickos weren't humping each others butts maybe they wouldn't have "huge pains in the ass".