Gays in the millitary?? No fair!!

[ABikerSailor]

Gay people can't "choose" to be gay or straight.

Quit listening to Ted Haggard's "Jesus Camp".

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Somehow, I doubt that, if the bass had served in the military in the 1940's, he would have had an equally hard time telling his troops they were wrong for not wanting to serve with "darkies".

plus ce que change, plus ce que meme chose.

White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.

Hey Bass Hole.....got news for you, CDR is the paygrade where a Naval Officer can command ships and submarines.

I think he knows more about leadership than some dipshit reservist O2 who stayed stateside to be safe from the war.

The Bass doesn't give a damn what anyone's rank is, just because someone obtains a certain rank doesn't mean their opinion is more qualified than others, there are many officers in the military in command positions that are substandard material and please quit making the false accusation that the Bass intentionally avoided deploying, since that would be in violation of the UCMJ.

Comparing blacks and faggots to invalidate DADT is stupid because they are no where near the same. Blacks were allowed to serve openly in the military, they were just segregated from whites based on Jim Crow. The situation with fags is not the same, don't compare the Bass' people to faggots to boost the activism of fags.

 

[Father Time]

It's perfectly comparable neither group gets to choose to belong to said group. Also said sex acts do not effect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.

Repeat, their is no comparison that can be made between blacks and faggots, faggots are defined by their sexual acts,

Wrong, they're defined by who they are attracted to.

blacks are not, please quit insulting black people by comparing us to faggots. Sexual acts are based on choice, a person can chose whether or not they want to have gay sex, blacks cannot chose whether to be black or not, its a BS comparison and you know it.

You do not choose who you are attracted to.

Sex acts may not physically effect people from serving but they do have a dtreimental effect socially within the workplace. By your logic, people who screw animals should be allowed to openly serve as zoophilists, because hey, sex acts doesn't affect ability to serve so it makes just as much sense as separating by skin color.

People who screw animals violate the law since animals cannot consent to sex acts with humans.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Gay people can't "choose" to be gay or straight.

Quit listening to Ted Haggard's "Jesus Camp".

Thats BS, ex-gays do exist which means fags can change, Black people cannot change the fact that we have African ancestry.


Ted Faggard is not a member of the church of Christ so why keep bringing him up you soup sandwich squid?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Wrong, they're defined by who they are attracted to.[7quote]

No, they're defined by their sexual acts.

You do not choose who you are attracted to.

BS, there is no scientific evidence for this, that is what the faggots say. At any rate, homosexuality is defined by sexual acts.

People who screw animals violate the law since animals cannot consent to sex acts with humans.

Faggots who join the military violate the UCMJ since since homosexuals are technically barred from being in the military. Your argument was that sexual acts don't affect a person's capacity to serve so a person who screws animals should serve by your logic and his sex acts should bother anyone else as long as he does his job.

 

[ABikerSailor]

White troops, the actual grunts, didn't have a problem serving with blacks, its was the government forcing Jim Crow on the military that was the problem. The situation is not comparable, please quit comparing an ethnic group that is tied together by historic struggle, blood and ancestry to group of people defined by their sexual acts.

Hey Bass Hole.....got news for you, CDR is the paygrade where a Naval Officer can command ships and submarines.

I think he knows more about leadership than some dipshit reservist O2 who stayed stateside to be safe from the war.

The Bass doesn't give a damn what anyone's rank is, just because someone obtains a certain rank doesn't mean their opinion is more qualified than others, there are many officers in the military in command positions that are substandard material and please quit making the false accusation that the Bass intentionally avoided deploying, since that would be in violation of the UCMJ.

Comparing blacks and faggots to invalidate DADT is stupid because they are no where near the same. Blacks were allowed to serve openly in the military, they were just segregated from whites based on Jim Crow. The situation with fags is not the same, don't compare the Bass' people to faggots to boost the activism of fags.

How many people have you actually led (I can't say into battle because your malingering cowardly ass never went)?

Additionally, did you have to qualify to lead? If you are going to be the CO of a ship, you do. You've also got to go through several screenings as well. Why? Because they don't want dipshit bigots such as yourself Bass Hole, they will mess up the unit with their innate racist and bullshit ideals.

Face it........an office of 10 jr enlisted can't compare to the same leadership experience as the Commanding Officer of a warship.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Now Bass I'll make it easy for you, what legitimate purpose does DADT serve anyway?

It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.

But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.

You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.

But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.

You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.

I know that it's hard for someone to understand who has never deployed OUTCONUS, so I'll try to explain...........

Deployment means that you leave your family and friends here in the United States for 6 months to a year. During that time, all you have to connect with the homefront is mail and computers, with the occasional phone call.

During those times, when you've got a letter in the mail that states something happened back home, it helps to talk to some of your shipmates/squadmates about it.

If you're gay, and you get a dear john letter from your SO? It can affect your morale to the point of being a danger to yourself AND to your squad.

Unfortunately Bass Hole, you don't have the experience to understand that, as your cowardly ass never went outside the States.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

How many people have you actually led (I can't say into battle because your malingering cowardly ass never went)?

NOYB and the Bass has never malingered, continually stating it isn't going to make it true. Just because someone holds a certain ranks doesn't mean their opinion or position is more right than someone who holds less rank, appeal to authority is a fallacious argument.

If a captain says the sky is blue and a commanding general says the sky is purple with green spots is the CG more right because of his rank? Damn you're such a retard squid.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.

You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.

I know that it's hard for someone to understand who has never deployed OUTCONUS, so I'll try to explain...........

Deployment means that you leave your family and friends here in the United States for 6 months to a year. During that time, all you have to connect with the homefront is mail and computers, with the occasional phone call.

During those times, when you've got a letter in the mail that states something happened back home, it helps to talk to some of your shipmates/squadmates about it.

If you're gay, and you get a dear john letter from your SO? It can affect your morale to the point of being a danger to yourself AND to your squad.

Unfortunately Bass Hole, you don't have the experience to understand that, as your cowardly ass never went outside the States.

Non-sequitir and trolling aside, basically you have presented no reasons for why it is necessary for someone to openly say they gay and why others should have to know they're faggots, even when they don't want to know.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.

Yeah.....you're a real hero.......

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.

Yeah.....you're a real hero.......

Basically you've just admitted you have no support for your position and you are now resorting to personal attacks, ok the Bass understands.

 

[Father Time]

It actually serves as a measure to let gays serve in the military as long as they don't openly say they are gay and prevents people from trying to find out if someone is gay, thus, don't ask and don't tell. You have given no reason why gay should have to tell someone that they gay and have given no reason why others should have to know, especially when no one wants to know.

But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.

You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.

How slimey of you to use the worse case scenario for this when all that needs to happen is he tells one person (like say a friend he made) and poof gone.

But you're avoiding the question, what difference does it make if he tells people, what makes DADT necessary vs. allowing gays to openly serve?

It may not benefit the military but DADT sure harms the military, but I don't think you care about that.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

But what difference does it make if they say they're gay, who will that hurt? It's stupid and arbitrary and costs the army potential fighters.

You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.

How slimey of you to use the worse case scenario for this when all that needs to happen is he tells one person (like say a friend he made) and poof gone.

But you're avoiding the question, what difference does it make if he tells people, what makes DADT necessary vs. allowing gays to openly serve?

It may not benefit the military but DADT sure harms the military, but I don't think you care about that.

The difference is most people in the military don't want to know if someone is a faggot so it makes no sense for gays to openly broadcast it. Why should faggots tell people they're faggots and why should others have to know whether someone is a faggot or not? If you cannot answer this there is no reason to do away with DADT.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.

Yeah.....you're a real hero.......

Basically you've just admitted you have no support for your position and you are now resorting to personal attacks, ok the Bass understands.

No. Just stating a fact. You've never deployed outside of the US for any length of time, and so therefore, do not understand the effect that just ONE bad letter from home can cause. Especially if it's a "dear John" letter.

Now......if we keep going with DADT, and a gay soldier is forward deployed to Afghanistan, but because of DADT, when he gets his "dear John" letter from his significant other, it's going to cause problems. Big ones.

One may be that he's walking around on patrol with his squad, and he's trying to figure out what went wrong, and misses a terrorist with an RPG, or misses an IED on his lookout.

Tell me that being gay and being unable to tell anyone what is going on in your life has no bearing on how you perform your military duties.

If you do, you're wrong.

THAT is why DADT should be rescinded.

But, your stupid lobotomized racist homophobic ass wouldn't understand because it's outside of your experience.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Like I said.....it's almost impossible to explain anything to some malingering coward who never wanted to deploy outside the US, because he just joined for the college money.

Yeah.....you're a real hero.......

Basically you've just admitted you have no support for your position and you are now resorting to personal attacks, ok the Bass understands.

No. Just stating a fact. You've never deployed outside of the US for any length of time, and so therefore, do not understand the effect that just ONE bad letter from home can cause. Especially if it's a "dear John" letter.

Now......if we keep going with DADT, and a gay soldier is forward deployed to Afghanistan, but because of DADT, when he gets his "dear John" letter from his significant other, it's going to cause problems. Big ones.

One may be that he's walking around on patrol with his squad, and he's trying to figure out what went wrong, and misses a terrorist with an RPG, or misses an IED on his lookout.

Tell me that being gay and being unable to tell anyone what is going on in your life has no bearing on how you perform your military duties.

If you do, you're wrong.

THAT is why DADT should be rescinded.

But, your stupid lobotomized racist homophobic ass wouldn't understand because it's outside of your experience.

You still have presented no valid reason, telling someone's faggoty boyfriend that someone died downrange is not a reason to lift DADT. No servicemember should have to know that a person is a faggot and faggots have no reason to make someone else know.

 

[Father Time]

You're not answering the question, why should everyone *HAVE* to now that person is gay in their unit if all that person wants to do is serve like everyone else and why should he have to tell anyone else? Why can't he keep that to himself? If a service member doesn't want to know someone's sexual so called preference why should faggots be allowed to put in people's face anyway? How does openly stating oneself to be gay benefit the military? It only benefits faggots and their gay activism.

How slimey of you to use the worse case scenario for this when all that needs to happen is he tells one person (like say a friend he made) and poof gone.

But you're avoiding the question, what difference does it make if he tells people, what makes DADT necessary vs. allowing gays to openly serve?

It may not benefit the military but DADT sure harms the military, but I don't think you care about that.

The difference is most people in the military don't want to know if someone is a faggot so it makes no sense for gays to openly broadcast it. Why should faggots tell people they're faggots and why should others have to know whether someone is a faggot or not? If you cannot answer this there is no reason to do away with DADT.

Post evidence backing this up, and it's stupid to try and make sure everything someone is allowed is something others will care about. But fine, let's do the same thing with religion. No one wants to hear about people's religion so beyond sunday worship or whatever let's do away with it. Same with talking about family.

You honestly must think very very low of soldiers if you think they can't handle co-workers talking to them about things they don't care about (which I can guarantee happens a lot more often than having to deal with a soldier who's gay).

It's such a minor annoyance and to make it a fireable offense seems draconian and beyond retarded.

Give us a good reason why being told stuff you don't care about should be grounds for being fired, and also why this should only apply to gays.

Also thanks for confirming that you don't care about how DADT harms the military.

Less soldiers vs. other soldiers being mildly annoyed.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

How slimey of you to use the worse case scenario for this when all that needs to happen is he tells one person (like say a friend he made) and poof gone.

But you're avoiding the question, what difference does it make if he tells people, what makes DADT necessary vs. allowing gays to openly serve?

It may not benefit the military but DADT sure harms the military, but I don't think you care about that.

The difference is most people in the military don't want to know if someone is a faggot so it makes no sense for gays to openly broadcast it. Why should faggots tell people they're faggots and why should others have to know whether someone is a faggot or not? If you cannot answer this there is no reason to do away with DADT.

Post evidence backing this up, and it's stupid to try and make sure everything someone is allowed is something others will care about. But fine, let's do the same thing with religion. No one wants to hear about people's religion so beyond sunday worship or whatever let's do away with it. Same with talking about family.

You honestly must think very low of soldiers if you think they can't handle co-workers talking to them about things they don't care about (which I can guarantee happens a lot more often than having to deal with a soldier who's gay).

It's such a minor annoyance and to make it a fireable offense seems draconian and utterly retarded.

Give us a good reason why being told stuff you don't care about should be grounds for being fired, and also why this should only apply to gays.

You're the one for lifting the status quo so the burden of proof is on you to prove that most servicemembers want to know if someone is a faggot or not. As for religion, it must be known to the military because every servicemember has a set of ID tags which list their religious preference in case they die and are in need of a burial so the military knows how to set it up.


Nobody in the military except faggots themselves want to discuss homosexuality just ask most servicemembers.

 

[Father Time]

The difference is most people in the military don't want to know if someone is a faggot so it makes no sense for gays to openly broadcast it. Why should faggots tell people they're faggots and why should others have to know whether someone is a faggot or not? If you cannot answer this there is no reason to do away with DADT.

Post evidence backing this up, and it's stupid to try and make sure everything someone is allowed is something others will care about. But fine, let's do the same thing with religion. No one wants to hear about people's religion so beyond sunday worship or whatever let's do away with it. Same with talking about family.

You honestly must think very low of soldiers if you think they can't handle co-workers talking to them about things they don't care about (which I can guarantee happens a lot more often than having to deal with a soldier who's gay).

It's such a minor annoyance and to make it a fireable offense seems draconian and utterly retarded.

Give us a good reason why being told stuff you don't care about should be grounds for being fired, and also why this should only apply to gays.

You're the one for lifting the status quo so the burden of proof is on you to prove that most servicemembers want to know if someone is a faggot or not. As for religion, it must be known to the military because every servicemember has a set of ID tags which list their religious preference in case they die and are in need of a burial so the military knows how to set it up.


Nobody in the military except faggots themselves want to discuss homosexuality just ask most servicemembers.

No you made the claim, so you back it up.

I say it's not fair which is self-explanatory, and it's been shown that it leads to troops being fired that are needed.

You say most soldiers wouldn't like it YOU back it up.

Although I'll betcha anything that in terms of what they don't like about the army, dealing with gays is probably low on the list (vs. say dealing with desert climate, or drill instructors, etc.).

Bottom line is it seems you want to fire gays if they cause a minor annoyance to other soldiers, if you honestly don't see anything wrong with this you're letting your hatered effect your rationality.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Post evidence backing this up, and it's stupid to try and make sure everything someone is allowed is something others will care about. But fine, let's do the same thing with religion. No one wants to hear about people's religion so beyond sunday worship or whatever let's do away with it. Same with talking about family.

You honestly must think very low of soldiers if you think they can't handle co-workers talking to them about things they don't care about (which I can guarantee happens a lot more often than having to deal with a soldier who's gay).

It's such a minor annoyance and to make it a fireable offense seems draconian and utterly retarded.

Give us a good reason why being told stuff you don't care about should be grounds for being fired, and also why this should only apply to gays.

You're the one for lifting the status quo so the burden of proof is on you to prove that most servicemembers want to know if someone is a faggot or not. As for religion, it must be known to the military because every servicemember has a set of ID tags which list their religious preference in case they die and are in need of a burial so the military knows how to set it up.


Nobody in the military except faggots themselves want to discuss homosexuality just ask most servicemembers.

No you made the claim, so you back it up.

I say it's not fair which is self-explanatory, and it's been shown that it leads to troops being fired that are needed.

You say most soldiers wouldn't like it YOU back it up.

Although I'll betcha anything that in terms of what they don't like about the army, dealing with gays is probably low on the list (vs. say dealing with desert climate, or drill instructors, etc.).

Bottom line is it seems you want to fire gays if they cause a minor annoyance to other soldiers, if you honestly don't see anything wrong with this you're letting your hatered effect your rationality.

Faggots can stay in as long as they don't openly serve and if they violate UCMJ thes should be dismissed, discharged or whatever.