- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 4,172
- Reaction score
- 1,960
- Location
- at the computer
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Why should the gays be fined?Some would probably say the homosexuals should be fined for it.
Why should the gays be fined?Some would probably say the homosexuals should be fined for it.
You are making a judgment that they outed themselves just to be discharged. That is an asinine statement. You have no proof that this is what any gay or lesbian did.at least they should lose future VA benefits for outing themselves after getting useful job skill training....
They should issue Kevlar underpants and panties to the homophobes. That will solve the problem.I agree, but we'll see how the system handles the transition.
How does being gay make one unfit to serve?
Sometimes a gay person is unfit for service.
Hate to break it to you and despite popular belief, gay soldiers are no more of an asset to the military than straight soldiers.
You expect these immature kids to defend your nation. You don't think very highly of the military, do you?Well, we have to stop and remember that we're dealing with a bunch of kids, who are just as prone to immature and irrational behavior as any other group of 17-25 y/o's in the country.
admitting open homosexuals reduces cohesion. reduced cohesion causes casuaties. each kia costs the military more than what - 10, 15x the amount he's complaining about?
So boot out the bigots. That would work.A lack of unit cohesion can cause a breakdown in discipline. A break down in discipline is what caused the My Lai massacre.
They should issue Kevlar underpants and panties to the homophobes. That will solve the problem.
So boot out the bigots. That would work.
That's not what I said. Wanna try again?
You expect these immature kids to defend your nation. You don't think very highly of the military, do you?
Yes they are or a bigot. One of the two. Why else would there be a problem with gays and lesbians in service? This is all about bigotry.As usual, anyone that doesn't think this is the neatest thing since sliced bread is a homophobe.
The statement you made is what it is. Your wording certainly makes a person think that is exactly what you mean. You said "Are you saying we should stop discharging everyone that is unfit for service?" That would be inclusive of the gays and lesbians that have been discharged.
Yes they are or a bigot. One of the two. Why else would there be a problem with gays and lesbians in service? This is all about bigotry.
Turn around is fair play. If a person is so Neanderthal as to have a problem with someone else's sexual orientation they should find a place on the planet where there are no gays or lesbians. Good luck with that.The, "bigots", are jus as improtant to troop strength as the gays are. Think there's a better way?
Turn around is fair play. If a person is so Neanderthal as to have a problem with someone else's sexual orientation they should find a place on the planet where there are no gays or lesbians. Good luck with that.
Your post talking about the level of maturity and calling them kids would stand against what you are saying now. Which is it? You state two different positions by your phrasiology. Pick one or the other.I think very highly of our servicemen, but I have enough experience to understand the reality. Anyone that's ever been in the service can testify that soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen will go out of their way to exhibit as much immaturity as possible. It's why they need so much adult supervision.
Not in those exact words no you didn't. But in your earlier post it certainly is what you meant and other posters saw the same as I. They called you on it also.I never said that gays were unfit for service.
Your post talking about the level of maturity and calling them kids would stand against what you are saying now. Which is it? You state two different positions by your phrasiology. Pick one or the other.
So you are comfortable with immature kids that can't deal with a homosexual mate protecting your nation? That is in fact what you are saying.I don't have to pick one or the other, because both statements are accurate.
Not in those exact words no you didn't.
But in your earlier post it certainly is what you meant and other posters saw the same as I. They called you on it also.
So you are comfortable with immature kids that can't deal with a homosexual mate protecting your nation? That is in fact what you are saying.
As I said that you did not use that exact term. The allusion in your verbage tells another story. Perhaps it is not what you wanted to relate but you may have chosen your words with more though as not to mislead others.IOW, I didn't say it.
And, just like them, you automatically assume that since I said, "unfit for service", that I'm talking about gays. Paranoid, or hinding your own homophobia?
Hiding my own homophobia. That is a laugh. I am a married lesbian. It would be best to know someone before you make stupid statements like that.IOW, I didn't say it.
And, just like them, you automatically assume that since I said, "unfit for service", that I'm talking about gays. Paranoid, or hinding your own homophobia?