How the Christian Right's Homophobia Scares Away Religious Young People

[Parsifal]

not to answer idiots.

You're talking to one of your betters. I'm a whole lot smarter than you are.

Not only are you too dumb to know what simple words mean but you also have demonstrated a complete inability to support your accusations.

When I accused you of being stupid (way too dumb to know what "murder" means) and twisted (someone who defends the idea of killing one's fellow soldiers for their sexual preference) I supported my accusations.

You demonstrate a complete lack of integrity and intelligence by posting nothing but unsupported crap.

 

[Parsifal]

Due to the changing structure of the military and accommodation of gay demands, that is not going to happen.

There have always been homosexuals in the military and it has never been right to kill them for it.

 

[Parsifal]

Christians are much more tolerant than muslims.

That is a valid generalization.

 

[Buford]

Due to the changing structure of the military and accommodation of gay demands, that is not going to happen.

There have always been homosexuals in the military and it has never been right to kill them for it.

Killin is wrong, of course. However, now we have homos in the military staging kissing events for the media. The entire media propaganda is designed to make it acceptable. That is what I object to.

 

[Katzndogz]

While there have always been homosexuals in the military, they have been prevented from open and flamboyant behavior before now.

 

[Parsifal]

now we have homos in the military staging kissing events for the media.

I don't like to see guys doing that under any circumstances......It's pretty cool when gals do it though.

 

[WinterBorn]

Um...the implication is not that the queer would be murdered (thus the reference to a "fire fight" = with ENEMY COMBATANTS).

The implication that the introduction to a modern, American military unit of a behaviorial deviant would undermine moral and cohesion, and that this would lead to the "homo" becoming a combat casulty.

The implication is that the gay soldier would be murdered because his fellow soldiers did not back him up, and did so intentionally. Sunniman also suggested the gay soldier would die from friendly fire.

Semantics.

Unit cohesion and moral can be broken by many factors. For example if Private Loveagoat is practicing beastiality.

Also, Heterosexuals die in combat from friendly fire. Fortunes of War, not a function of their need to pack fudge.

Semantics? lol

What he said was: "If we had ever found out there was a homo in our unit. He would not have lived past the next fire fight.
Unfortunately, during a time of war; friendly fire sometimes happens."

That is not a semantics issue. This is a claim that his unit would kill someone if they found out they were gay.

 

[WinterBorn]

Semantics.

Bringing about the death of a fellow soldier intentionally is murder.

You didn't know that bringing about someone's death intentionally is murder?

Why are you defending the idea of murdering one's fellow soldiers?

Thanks for playing.

Now, run along and look up the word "semantics" in your online dictionary.

Then try to make a post that stays on topic, or start another tread about the difference between freindly fire casulties and "murder." Combat, in case it never ocurred to you, is ugly. All sorts of unfortunate things can happen, regardless of what you call it.

And when the death by friendly fire is suggested before it happens, it becomes murder.

Yuo cannot possibly claim, based on what Sunniman said, that the friendly fire would be accidental?

 

[Buford]

While there have always been homosexuals in the military, they have been prevented from open and flamboyant behavior before now.

That's the problem. They're childish. This is another example of why my theory about homosexuality is a lot to do with immaturity.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ideally a soldier whose behavior is disruptive to the unit would be removed before he became a danger to the entire unit and self-help removal woudn't be necessary.

Combat is not actually an ideal environment, unless you happen to belong to the Dutch Army Tuba Corps.

Because combat is not an ideal environment, it is essential that a unit in combat be cohesive. A soldier who is making one or more fellow unit members miserable with overt homosexual demands will cause irreparable damage to that unit. While a homosexual soldier is permitted to serve openly, anyone who complains will be disciplined for exhibiting homophobia.

Ideally, such a soldier will be removed from that unit before his (or her) obnoxious behavior becomes disruptive to the whole. Due to the changing structure of the military and accommodation of gay demands, that is not going to happen.

Did anyone say anything about making homosexual demands? The comment was made that they would kill him if they found out he was gay.

And just as an FYI, most gay men I know want a willing partner, not some grunt with issues.

 

[Sunni Man]

And when the death by friendly fire is suggested before it happens, it becomes murder.

Yuo cannot possibly claim, based on what Sunniman said, that the friendly fire would be accidental?

It would be difficult in most cases to determine if the friendly fire causality was deliberate or accidental.

The term "misadventure" is what is listed on the soldiers official records as the cause of death when they are killed by friendly fire in a combat zone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

While there have always been homosexuals in the military, they have been prevented from open and flamboyant behavior before now.

The same as heteros in the service have always been prevented from open and flamboyant behavior, so are homosexuals now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And when the death by friendly fire is suggested before it happens, it becomes murder.

Yuo cannot possibly claim, based on what Sunniman said, that the friendly fire would be accidental?

It would be difficult in most cases to determine if the friendly fire causality was deliberate or accidental.

The term "misadventure" is what is listed on the soldiers official records as the cause of death when they are killed by friendly fire in a combat zone.

Friendly fire deaths are almost always accidental. Because somebody does something on your side is unintentionally stupid does not make it murder. Probably almost 10% of our deaths in Vietnam were from friendly fire: firefights in the dark, bad artillery coordinates, bad airstrikes, soldiers in the wrong place at really the wrong time.

This was one of the more difficult concepts for me to learn and internalize: we kill each other inadvertently at times in combat.

 

[WinterBorn]

And when the death by friendly fire is suggested before it happens, it becomes murder.

Yuo cannot possibly claim, based on what Sunniman said, that the friendly fire would be accidental?

It would be difficult in most cases to determine if the friendly fire causality was deliberate or accidental.

The term "misadventure" is what is listed on the soldiers official records as the cause of death when they are killed by friendly fire in a combat zone.

Friendly fire deaths are almost always accidental. Because somebody does something on your side is unintentionally stupid does not make it murder. Probably almost 10% of our deaths in Vietnam were from friendly fire: firefights in the dark, bad artillery coordinates, bad airstrikes, soldiers in the wrong place at really the wrong time.

This was one of the more difficult concepts for me to learn and internalize: we kill each other inadvertently at times in combat.

Whether they could be legally prosecuted or not is not why I berated him.

When you make statements like:

"If we had ever found out there was a homo in our unit. He would not have lived past the next fire fight.Unfortunately, during a time of war; friendly fire sometimes happens."


"There would be many ways to get rid of a fudge packer in the platoon.
Send him on a suicide mission.
Assign him to walk point in a mine field.
Or have him check out an area that has known enemy sniper activity."

You are advocating the murder of a US serviceman based on his sexual orientation.

That is despicable behavior, regardless of which side of the argument you favor.

 

[Sunni Man]

"There would be many ways to get rid of a fudge packer in the platoon.
Send him on a suicide mission.
Assign him to walk point in a mine field.
Or have him check out an area that has known enemy sniper activity."[/B]

You are advocating the murder of a US serviceman based on his sexual orientation.

All of those are legitimate combat missions and not murder.

And if I was in charge. It would be up to me to decide which soldier to send.

If I knew it was going to be very dangerous.

Then I would not send my best soldier who might not make it back.

I'd send the soldier I could most afford to lose. The one most disliked by the other soldiers.

And if he was a homo; that would be a bonus for the whole platoon.

That my friends is leadership.

 

[WinterBorn]

"There would be many ways to get rid of a fudge packer in the platoon.
Send him on a suicide mission.
Assign him to walk point in a mine field.
Or have him check out an area that has known enemy sniper activity."[/B]

You are advocating the murder of a US serviceman based on his sexual orientation.

All of those are legitimate combat missions and not murder.

And if I was in charge. It would be up to me to decide which soldier to send.

If I knew it was going to be very dangerous.

Then I would not send my best soldier who might not make it back.

I'd send the soldier I could most afford to lose. The one most disliked by the other soldiers.

And if he was a homo; that would be a bonus for the whole platoon.

That my friends is leadership.

Leadership?? LMAO! This is you dancing to avoid owning up to what you said. Besides, a leader does not send someone out to "get rid of them".

 

[Sunni Man]

Leadership?? LMAO! This is you dancing to avoid owning up to what you said. Besides, a leader does not send someone out to "get rid of them".

A leader must weigh his options and make a decision.

For me the decision as to who to send would be obvious.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It would be difficult in most cases to determine if the friendly fire causality was deliberate or accidental.

The term "misadventure" is what is listed on the soldiers official records as the cause of death when they are killed by friendly fire in a combat zone.

Friendly fire deaths are almost always accidental. Because somebody does something on your side is unintentionally stupid does not make it murder. Probably almost 10% of our deaths in Vietnam were from friendly fire: firefights in the dark, bad artillery coordinates, bad airstrikes, soldiers in the wrong place at really the wrong time.

This was one of the more difficult concepts for me to learn and internalize: we kill each other inadvertently at times in combat.

Whether they could be legally prosecuted or not is not why I berated him.

When you make statements like:

"If we had ever found out there was a homo in our unit. He would not have lived past the next fire fight.Unfortunately, during a time of war; friendly fire sometimes happens."


"There would be many ways to get rid of a fudge packer in the platoon.
Send him on a suicide mission.
Assign him to walk point in a mine field.
Or have him check out an area that has known enemy sniper activity."

You are advocating the murder of a US serviceman based on his sexual orientation. That is despicable behavior, regardless of which side of the argument you favor.

WinterDoosh, don't ever suggest I advocated a murder of a US personnel because s/he was a lesbian or a gay.

You are asshat wrong if you think friendly fire deaths are deliberate. If troops thought that, they would turn on each other, not the enemy.

A civilian who does not know his ass from a hole in the ground talking about military matters in a way to bring dishonor and discredit to the service is a doosh.

Pure and simple.

 

[WinterBorn]

Leadership?? LMAO! This is you dancing to avoid owning up to what you said. Besides, a leader does not send someone out to "get rid of them".

A leader must weigh his options and make a decision.

For me the decision would be very easy.

So you pick the person, for a dangerous mission, based on your personal dislikes rather than on qualifications?

Yeah, not much leadership there. More like a kid on a schoolyard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If a man was as dangerous to group cohesion as Sunni Man, he would be on point for the rest of the tour.