Mullen says gay ban in military should be lifted

[Un Con Troll Able]

By ANNE FLAHERTY and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers Anne Flaherty And Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writers – 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – The military's top uniformed officer on Tuesday made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

The comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the stage for the Defense Department's yearlong study into how the ban can be repealed without causing a major upheaval in the military.

Remove him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100202/..._military_gays

[S-T]

"Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to integrity."

http://twitter.com/thejointstaff/status/8553057480

[Wolf Counsel]

I can guarantee that if the faggots start joining the Military without hiding themselves, the weenies in command will bow down to their demands of this and that, and the demands will increase to the point that discipline will be 100 percent out the window. I can see the new training for warriors:

Seminars on living with an alternate lifestyle metrosexual warrior as your barracksmate.

[Timberwolf]

Let the hazing begin...

[DoctorDoom]

[Lethal Warrior]

I promise this much, should they allow queers to openly serve in the US Army, I will not re-enlist...If americans truly want queers defending their way of life then so be it, but I will not be a part of it...I will be busy preparing to defend myself and my family from, them...

[HerCrowningGlory]

In my opinion, I don't care if you're straight, queer as a three-dollar bill, permanently impotent, white, black, red, yellow, Christian, atheist, Buddhist or any shade in between if you're willing to die for the freedom and protection of this great Nation. With that said, you check your "right to express your individuality" at the door. You keep your agendas and persecution complex and victim mentality to yourself. You're not a "gay in the military". You're a soldier. There is no need to openly discuss your sexual proclivities with your fellow men (or women, in some cases) in uniform. You may as well ask for a pretty little rainbow or pink triangle patch for your uniform, and I can guarantee you that would go over like a turd in a punch bowl for the majority of the other soldiers.

Stop talking about how oppressed you are. If you aren't willing to serve this country with the rules and regulations already set forth then STHU and find another career path. There are plenty of others who are willing to put up or shut up. There are plenty of others who are willing to proudly put on that uniform, take up their arms and march bravely into battle all without whining about how marginalized they are or how they can't "express themselves fully".

[cerberus]

Originally Posted by Lethal Warrior

I promise this much, should they allow queers to openly serve in the US Army, I will not re-enlist...If americans truly want queers defending their way of life then so be it, but I will not be a part of it...I will be busy preparing to defend myself and my family from, them...

Fine. Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.

Preparing to defend yourself and family from gay people? What do you think is going to happen? The "gay" platoon doing an infantry assault on your house to redecorate your living room?

[cerberus]

Originally Posted by HerCrowningGlory

In my opinion, I don't care if you're straight, queer as a three-dollar bill, permanently impotent, white, black, red, yellow, Christian, atheist, Buddhist or any shade in between if you're willing to die for the freedom and protection of this great Nation.

Indeed. Well put.

There is no need to openly discuss your sexual proclivities with your fellow men (or women, in some cases) in uniform.

Does that go for us straights too? Can the married guys still talk about their wives?

[Un Con Troll Able]

So heterosexual servicemembers should be forced to live with, dress and disrobe in front of, and shower with openly homosexual individuals?

How is that different from forcing heterosexual men and women to live in the same room, dress and undress in the same room, and shower in the same open bay showers?

Homosexuality is the product of a genetic defect or mental illness. The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate within their sexual identity makes it self-evident that it is not viable as a "lifestyle." It is a non-self-sustaining deviation.

As far as the individual who stated he would leave the service if "gays" are allowed to openly serve, I urge him to reconsider. I would advocate him joining what will undoubtedly be a very large sub-culture in the military (comprising both officers and enlisted) that will devote itself to thoroughly intimidating "open servers" to the point that they want nothing more than to permanently walk out the front gate and not look back.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The first time a couple of "open servers" walk into an NCO or Officers Club holding hands -- that club will become a "gay" bar.

Of course, you just write the names down of those who patronize the establishment. Then deal with them later.

[Wolf Counsel]

Originally Posted by cerberus

Fine. Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.

Preparing to defend yourself and family from gay people? What do you think is going to happen? The "gay" platoon doing an infantry assault on your house to redecorate your living room?

I also will defend myself and my family against homosexual masturbaters. Have people learned nothing from the homo loud mouths who want to cram their masturbatory life of Hell on everyone who looks "promising" to them? This push for "civil unions" is enough to open up a blind person's eyes.

[Wyatt_Junker]

The USS Ticonderoga aircraft carrier had bunks stacked up 4 high. Each man had the pleasure of smelling the pungent farts of the gentleman directly above him as the big boat rode the swales up and down, up and down(like porn). Close quarters really is close quarters. And I guess we could allow the gays in, but no one can cruise around naked anymore since it will cause birds-n-bees tension. The men will all have to wear full body suits so their dicks don't hang out in tempting fashion now since DADT is gone, we mustn't arouse the ones who can now openly tell, and since we can't segregate gays from others because of ACLU bullshit, then there will be no flesh shown at any time lest the random humping begin unawares. Also, the men will all be forced to stink since hygiene will be radically altered lest a homo get a chubby in the common shower.

But I guess we can just ADA this thing with new logistics in the same fashion as we did handrails for gimps, 'cept we make separate stalls for fegs, right? Why not? Its just more taxes to retrofit 'close quarters', right? I mean now we'll have unclose quarters, or instead of close quarters, now we'll have FAR QUARTERS. Don't want a feg to whiff another man's hot dog fart. He might mistake it for a pickup line or get a bone-jammer.

So, we'll just make our carriers twice as big to accomodate the new far quarters and 100 new gay shower stalls for 'privacy' since we're all into neato rights now and sensitive issues. Our concerns are that everyone's feelings aren't hurt. Not to defend the country or win wars. The first priority is that gays feel comfortable. America is a gentle nation. We do very expensive concrete curb cut outs to transform old towns into accomodating ADA friendly neighborhoods, almost bankrupting local governments and shutting down mom and pop diners if they don't have ramps or handrails. Might as well do the same thing to our military right? Just put on a new deck for the queers so they don't have to be made fun of, a new floor, Love Boat style, on top of the gunboat, right? Make the feelings all better now, right? Don't want to get a boner when Joe Q Stud is using a pumice stone on his ballsac. We better make sure the birds and bees don't get in the way here. We better make sure everyone behaves. We need more walls and privacy, otherwise we could have us some serious unwanted humping going on or LEERING, strained eyesockets in the hull. And strained eyesockets hurt, especially if yer gay.

We'll just make us some bigger boats. Far quarters. We want gays to know they can serve openly, as faggotly as they can. Just raise taxes. Increase the budget. America must prove to the world we're very pro-gay and nice. Build a new boat, a bigger one, shaped like a huge cock.

[JohnSteel]

Originally Posted by Un Con Troll Able

So heterosexual servicemembers should be forced to live with, dress and disrobe in front of, and shower with openly homosexual individuals?

How is that different from forcing heterosexual men and women to live in the same room, dress and undress in the same room, and shower in the same open bay showers?

How is it different than school where you had to change and shower in front of a room full of boys or girls? Chances are that one of them was homosexual.

The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate within their sexual identity makes it self-evident that it is not viable as a "lifestyle." It is a non-self-sustaining deviation.

That's like saying that all of those who are in relationships but can't reproduce are not really in love and not in real relationships.

I would advocate him joining what will undoubtedly be a very large sub-culture in the military (comprising both officers and enlisted) that will devote itself to thoroughly intimidating "open servers" to the point that they want nothing more than to permanently walk out the front gate and not look back.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The first time a couple of "open servers" walk into an NCO or Officers Club holding hands -- that club will become a "gay" bar.

Of course, you just write the names down of those who patronize the establishment. Then deal with them later.

That you would even suggest such a thing disgusts me.

[Kathy30]

Originally Posted by cerberus

Fine. Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.

Preparing to defend yourself and family from gay people? What do you think is going to happen? The "gay" platoon doing an infantry assault on your house to redecorate your living room?

You aren't too well informed are you?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/D...aspx?id=308506

SAN DIEGO - A pastor leading efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would end same-sex "marriage" in California says the campaign has become the target of vandalism and violence.



Rev. Jim Garlow says signs urging a "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 are being stolen, churches have been pelted with eggs, cars have been parked outside the homes of supporters bearing the message "Bigots live here," and some supporters have been physically assaulted. Garlow says a pastor even had the windows of his car shot out because he was displaying a "Yes on 8" sticker. "One man in Modesto was beaten as he was handing out 'Yes on 8' signs, and had stitches in his eye," he adds.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/479857.aspx



Several churches have been vandalized by apparent supporters of same-sex marriage since the idea was banned in California last week, local police have reported
http://cbs2.com/local/Proposition.8.....2.850469.html


Many reports of hostility toward Prop 8 supporters involve acts of vandalism. An elderly couple who put a Yes on 8 sign in their yard had a block thrown through their window.[8] A senior citizen who placed a pro-Prop-8 bumper sticker on her car had her car's rear window smashed in.[9] Some individuals with pro-Prop-8 bumper stickers had their cars keyed.[10] One woman with a "One Man, One Woman" bumper sticker had her car keyed and tires deflated while she was in a grocery store.[11] One man who placed signs in his yard and stickers on his cars and motorbike reported that someone egged and floured his home three times and egged, floured, and honeyed his car twice.[12] Someone also pushed over the man's motorbike and scraped the bumper stickers off the back glass windows of his cars.[13] Several other individuals reported that Yes on Prop 8 bumper stickers were scraped or ripped off their vehicles or defaced.[14]
Some individuals found their property vandalized with spray paint. Vandals spray-painted vehicles, garages, fences, and Yes on 8 signs in Yucaipa, California.[15] An Alta Loma resident who placed a Yes on 8 sign in her yard found the words "love for all" and "no on 8" spray-painted on her fifth-wheel trailer.[16] In San Jose, vandals spray-painted the garage doors of two homeowners who displayed signs supporting Prop 8.[17] Vandals also spray-painted anti-Prop-8 messages on commercial and residential buildings in Fullerton.[18]
Other forms of vandalism were more bizarre. One woman who placed a pro-Prop-8 sign on her balcony reported finding that her staircase leading downstairs had been covered in urine.[19] She also found a puddle of urine at the bottom of the stairs.[20]
Vandals also hit houses of worship. Perpetrators used orange paint to vandalize a statue of the Virgin Mary outside one church.[21] Offices at the Cornerstone Church in Fresno were egged.[22] Swastikas and other graffiti were scrawled on the walls of the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco, a parish known widely as being "gay-friendly."[23] In San Luis Obispo, the Assembly of God Church was egged and toilet-papered, and a Mormon church had an adhesive poured onto a doormat and keypad.[24] Signs supporting Prop 8 were twisted into a swastika at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church in Riverside.[25] Someone used a heavy object wrapped with a Yes on 8 sign to smash the window of a pastor's office at Messiah Lutheran Church in Downey.[26]
In addition, reports of Yes on Prop 8 signs being defaced, damaged, dislocated, or stolen are almost too numerous to track reliably.[27] According to one source, the Yes on 8 campaign estimated that approximately one-third of an estimated 25,000 signs distributed in California were stolen or vandalized before the campaign ended.[28] Prop 8 supporters who replaced stolen signs often had their signs stolen again.[29] Sign thefts also often involved the added element of trespass or fear of trespass.[30] In some cases, perpetrators crossed fences and walls to steal signs or removed signs that had been securely fastened in place.[31] One individual reported coming home late and hearing male voices outside her home.[32] Another individual reported that a suspected perpetrator quickly drove away when spotted through the front window of his house.[33]
http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg2328.cfm

Do you, personally, individually, think that men are going to FIGHT for the right to have their homes and houses of worship vandalized because some gay guy feels the urge?

[Timberwolf]

Homosexuals seem to be possessed of a spirit of violence & special entitlement. I say we exorcise those demons and send them to hell, where they belong.

[Wolf Counsel]

"That's like saying that all of those who are in relationships but can't reproduce are not really in love and not in real relationships." --John Steel, on reproduction viable relationships

Plenty of heterosexuals in a relationship cannot procreate. The difference between them and faggots is that there is no masturbatory relationship with a member of the same sex, and coitus, whether fertility is involved or not, is possible. You homos go rub your pathetic genitals on a sea urchin, for all I care. Stop trying to be equal like heterosexuals.

[buckeyepete]

Originally Posted by Wyatt_Junker

The USS Ticonderoga aircraft carrier had bunks stacked up 4 high. Each man had the pleasure of smelling the pungent farts of the gentleman directly above him as the big boat rode the swales up and down, up and down(like porn). Close quarters really is close quarters. And I guess we could allow the gays in, but no one can cruise around naked anymore since it will cause birds-n-bees tension. The men will all have to wear full body suits so their dicks don't hang out in tempting fashion now since DADT is gone, we mustn't arouse the ones who can now openly tell, and since we can't segregate gays from others because of ACLU bullshit, then there will be no flesh shown at any time lest the random humping begin unawares. Also, the men will all be forced to stink since hygiene will be radically altered lest a homo get a chubby in the common shower.

But I guess we can just ADA this thing with new logistics in the same fashion as we did handrails for gimps, 'cept we make separate stalls for fegs, right? Why not? Its just more taxes to retrofit 'close quarters', right? I mean now we'll have unclose quarters, or instead of close quarters, now we'll have FAR QUARTERS. Don't want a feg to whiff another man's hot dog fart. He might mistake it for a pickup line or get a bone-jammer.

So, we'll just make our carriers twice as big to accomodate the new far quarters and 100 new gay shower stalls for 'privacy' since we're all into neato rights now and sensitive issues. Our concerns are that everyone's feelings aren't hurt. Not to defend the country or win wars. The first priority is that gays feel comfortable. America is a gentle nation. We do very expensive concrete curb cut outs to transform old towns into accomodating ADA friendly neighborhoods, almost bankrupting local governments and shutting down mom and pop diners if they don't have ramps or handrails. Might as well do the same thing to our military right? Just put on a new deck for the queers so they don't have to be made fun of, a new floor, Love Boat style, on top of the gunboat, right? Make the feelings all better now, right? Don't want to get a boner when Joe Q Stud is using a pumice stone on his ballsac. We better make sure the birds and bees don't get in the way here. We better make sure everyone behaves. We need more walls and privacy, otherwise we could have us some serious unwanted humping going on or LEERING, strained eyesockets in the hull. And strained eyesockets hurt, especially if yer gay.

We'll just make us some bigger boats. Far quarters. We want gays to know they can serve openly, as faggotly as they can. Just raise taxes. Increase the budget. America must prove to the world we're very pro-gay and nice. Build a new boat, a bigger one, shaped like a huge cock.

Comparing ADA requirements to the topic of this thread is an 'apples & oranges' argument.

First off, most, if not all "gimps" you refer to, didn't 'choose' to become "gimps".

Secondly, most, if not all "gimps" were, or still are, taxpaying citizens. The 'expensive curb cut-outs' you refer to is on par with providing sidewalks on city owned streets (read: taxpayer funded ) for the pleasure of the physically able taxpaying citizens.


And, the 'mom&pop stores you referred to were originally 'grandfathered' in. The ADA compliance was only applied to new or remodeled businesses. There are still many businesses that aren't ADA compliant.

Handrails for the 'gimps' are only common sense. You know, lawsuits resulting from falls?

And, by the way, the USS George Eastman had handrails all over the place for use of the 'physically able' sailors to use during stormy seas. And, we didn't have any 'gimps' aboard.

[JohnSteel]

Originally Posted by Wolf Counsel

Plenty of heterosexuals in a relationship cannot procreate. The difference between them and faggots is that there is no masturbatory relationship with a member of the same sex, and coitus, whether fertility is involved or not, is possible. You homos go rub your pathetic genitals on a sea urchin, for all I care. Stop trying to be equal like heterosexuals.

Using coitus as the defining requirement for having a relationship is just as irrational as using procreation. Prostitution involves coitus but that's a business transaction, not a relationship.

On a side note I wonder why the many uses of "faggot" and similar are allowed. The fourm rules http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/...p?do=showrules say "By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

[Timberwolf]

John, the deal is that any type of intercourse other than penile/vaginal is a corruption of the act...yes, even amongst heteros. The poop chute is a ONE way street. It was NOT designed to have anything "go against the flow" and, if one isn't very careful (even during medical procedures), rupture can happen, followed by sepsis (the REAL cause of AIDS).

IOW, making a fudgesicle out of one's dick and or "packing fudge" is no reason be bestowed with special "rights".

There are other reasons...the destruction (or at least the non-protection) of the nuclear family being chief among them...because whenEVER the nuclear family is compromised by societal dictate, that society soon crumbles. Ask the Romans...Ask the Greeks.

[Wolf Counsel]

Originally Posted by JohnSteel

Using coitus as the defining requirement for having a relationship is just as irrational as using procreation. Prostitution involves coitus but that's a business transaction, not a relationship.

On a side note I wonder why the many uses of "faggot" and similar are allowed. The fourm rules http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/...p?do=showrules say "By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

I have not referred to you personally as a faggot, have I? If it bothers you for me to call a disgusting homosexual pervert a faggot, perhaps this is not the forum for your delicate psyche? I use coitus as the normal reference to sex, and masturbation I relegate to the fetish realm. If you wish to equate the coitus of prostitution with the coitus of marriage, then go ahead. Even coitus with a prostitute involves a sexual act, whereas masturbation on a same sexed individual is akin to rubbing your genitals on a mayonnaise sandwich.