Gay Fags In The Military
03.14.07In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
After a flurry of condemnation Tuesday, Pace issued a statement acknowledging that the Defense Department’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays is a sensitive subject and said: “I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.” Full Story »
So the homosexuals got their panties in a bind over that one. And thats not just an expression for these guys. Isn’t it offensive to be told that you are immoral? a sinner? Especially when you are as self righteous as these nazi queer groups forcing acceptance of their degradation and unnatural perversion.
When are we gonna be allowed to publicly boot stomp these guys? It’ll be too late someday.
For being so adamant about expression of opinions and or beliefs… these guys sure like to cut out anyone speaking in disfavor of them.
Good job, Pace. Don’t back down from these cut-throat fags.
Your site is satire, right? It’s pretty funny stuff. You’re gay yourself, right? I thought so.
# March 14th, 2007 at 2:04 pmRascal… you do know that what you said icould be considered slander and you could be held accountable? You know Chad has your IP address?
# March 14th, 2007 at 3:58 pmAnd I have the stick to beat him with…c’mere you little rascal you…
By the way douche bag. Yer on the internet, just to let you know. I just hope that your trolling of sites to add comments like that helps you sleep at night feeling satisfied with your pathetic existence…after all….it’s easy to talk shit when you know they can’t touch you isn’t it? Yer so clever there Rascal. You clever little girl you…
# March 14th, 2007 at 7:17 pmTHE FAGGOTS ARE COMING! THE FAGGOTS ARE COMING!
please, Chad. i can’t believe that with all the genuinely serious things to talk about, you choose to focus on this crap. “Man says things homosexuals don’t like. Homosexuals get mad.” Oh. My. God. next stop: Gay world domination!!!
Let’s talk about something else, something less trivial. What’s your take on this whole global warming issue? that’s certainly something liberals are abuzz about.
# March 15th, 2007 at 5:15 amRascal: Or maybe he just thinks gays are icky. Not everyone who doesn’t accept support homosexual behavior is a closet case.
CS: “Held accountable”? Like how? Is Chad gonna send him a stern e-mail or something? I’m sure the dude is terrified now that Chad has his IP address. Just terrified.
Chad: The thing is, gays are already in the military, and they always have been, and there always will be (in fact, the first US soldier to die in this war was gay). I don’t see why they should be forced to remain closeted in order to serve their country.
# March 15th, 2007 at 7:46 amSimon - You are blind if you can’t see the rise in homosexual propaganda and promotion in the media, in the schools, in the military, and everywhere else. It is going to be a serious problem.
guav - gays shouldn’t be forced to be closeted. they shouldn’t be allowed in the military at all. they are detrimental to the nature and objective of the military. same goes for wimmin in combat.
p.s. - stern emails from me have caused strong men to suffer from terrible throngs of abhorrence and panic.
# March 15th, 2007 at 10:19 amHow are they detrimental to the nature and objective of the military? And how do you propose that they be kept out?
# March 15th, 2007 at 11:17 ami agree iam not just against fags in the military iam aginst all faggots every where and i wish we could curb stomp them to and all u queers talking shit need to get some pussy
# March 15th, 2007 at 11:17 amI’ve worked with a few gays in the Army and this is what I have found makes them detrimental to the mission.
- You have to worry about being “eye raped” in the shower
- You don’t sleep comfortably at night anymore
- They eat all the bananas at the chow hall so you can’t get the potassium you need and you pass out when doing push ups.
- The glitter they use as camo on field missions ruins the whole idea to begin with.
- They get what they want, because everyone is afraid of “offending” them for feear of a lawsuit. Commanders hands are now tied.
- And instead of fearing only “The RACE Card”…..we now have to fear “The Gay Card”….one more tool in the arsenal of the “offended” to rob people of money because they got their feelings hurt.
- They hit on you…UuuUuugghhh. “Einhorns a MAAAAANN!!”
# March 15th, 2007 at 12:08 pmHow does you being “eye raped” in the shower affect a combat mission? Seriously. If you think fags can’t keep their eye off your butt in the middle of a firefight, your ego is way too big haha
And I’m supposed to believe that sleeping in the sweltering/freezing desert under constant threat of death is not nearly as detrimental to a fine night’s sleep as the idea that there might be a gay guy in the next bunk? You’re more scared of a gay guy than a mortar? You’re a pussy hahah
The glitter, however, is a serious issue
# March 15th, 2007 at 2:36 pmOK Heath, I guess to avoid the race card, the gay card, and problems with women, we should have an army of straight white men? Cool. Hey, why don’t we apply this logic on a countrywide scale? fire all the women, minorities, and gays - they just cause problems for managers. actually, know what? let’s take this all the way. anyone for up for a bit of ethnic cleansing and homo lynching? it would be so perfect: a country founded for, owned by and defended by straight white men.
Oh wait! I forgot: this is America. The land of opportunity, the melting pot, a multicultural, multireligious, multiethnic country, and proud of it. a place where everyone is treated equally, the land of tolerance, all that good stuff. so benevolent and good, in fact, the we can “democratize” and “liberate” others, isn’t that correct? But I don’t suppose we should let any minorities or homos or women be involved in defending our nation’s values because our nation’s value don’t like them.
I don’t know what you call your attitude, but it’s not “patriotic” or “American”.
And as for your inability to sleep comfortably at night - i’ll be so charitable as to suggest that perhaps that is due to a subconscious awareness of the hypocritical, irrational basis of your paranoia concerning homosexuals. no, i take that back, i’m sure it’s based on a reasonable, realistic concern: i mean, you hear about gay men raping straight men ALL THE TIME. and you never hear about straight men doing anything of the sort, because they’re morally superior to gays. yeah, that’s consistent with the facts…
# March 15th, 2007 at 3:48 pmguav- “Held accountable” Chad has friends with l337 skilz. I’m almost sure the little rascal has an unpatched version of IIS or something. He could be held accountable. Besides he probably couldn’t handle an email from Chad without getting all upset and stuff.
Homosexuality is a perversion. Guav even you can wrap your mind around this. A perversion is something against the natural use. I somehow think poking another dude isn’t natural. Of course you would probably say that is totally obsurd. You probably think plowing a corn field with a Porsche is totally natural as well.
If we make the homosexuals come out of the closet then we should make them become members of a special forces unit. Only homo’s allowed. That way they can do their duty, err, or someone else’s or something sick like that.
# March 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pmHeath,
You got it. The RACE Card! Thanks for the comparison. Fifty years ago many good ol’ white soldiers said “hell no, we don’t want to serve with no “n**gers”!!! That was okay back in 1947. In 1948 President Truman desegregated the Armed Forces. Back then they used sex as an argument against segregation. Eg. “your wife or daughter will be in ‘arms length’ of a negro man”, “Every colored man secretly wants a white woman, putting the wives of white soldiers at risk”, “colored men are ten times or more more likely to have VDs.” The also said that black men would steal from white troops, and they also used scripture. “the negro is a decendent of Ham (Book of Noah) or Cain (Cain and Abel) and “marked” by God to be inferior.” Manhood was also used to justify discrimination, as if was claimed that black men were more cowardly than white men. The epithet “boy” was a favorite slur for a black man to try and take away his manhood. Blacks were also considered less intelligent than white soldiers, and therefore couldn’t serve anything technical. You still think there is no comparison? Maybe you believe that stuff as well. Why don’t you go and call Marine Staff Sergeant Eric Alva, the first service member to be injured in the War in Iraq in 2003, (who recently came out as a gay man) and call him a “fag”. I dare you.
Dino,
US Army (retired)
# March 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pmI think Akismat nabbed my previous post.
# March 16th, 2007 at 7:04 pmDino, Simon, I think you two are mistaking Heath’s argument. Sure there has been racial injustice on all sides. Perversion is raceless. Blacks, whites, native, Eskimos, or whatever can serve ably in the forces. Women should be able to serve but not in combat. Homosexuals should not be allowed to profess their perversion and serve. If a man professed to be a thief and has stolen should he be able to serve? How about a murder? Rapist? Child predator? Open the gates and let it all in, if you don’t you’d be perversely descriminating. What if someone openly advocated MBLA(Man Boy Love Assocation)?
Call Eric Alva a fag? Please if the shoe fits wear it. Why dose it matter if someone labels you? I’ve been called lots of derogatory names but they were true. The slur didn’t hurt because I am what I am. A red neck, Preacher, holy rollin, whitey, male, who will lay my life on the line for my family and if need be, my country. Funny how the homosexuals are trying to make themselves a third race or gender. Gotta be easy on them because they are insecure of who they are? Why? If he is a gay man than nothing could make him sad. If he is a sexually twisted man than call him fag or queer.
# March 17th, 2007 at 7:44 pmCS,
Is living on less than 1 dollar a “natural”? Because it doesn’t seem like it to me, and there are a couple billion people doing it. I’m not saying that gay people don’t make me a little uncomfortable or that it should be encouraged, but it doesn’t matter whether it is or not. This idea that gay people are somehow guilty or some sort of sin that they could choose not to commit is absolutely absurd. Did you “choose” to be straight? Could you then change your mind and “become” a homo. Would you or anyone else become a homosexual if they were allowed to marry?
Speaking from my own experience, I can honestly and confidently say that liking women and not men in a sexual way was not a decision i made. it’s just how i am. oh and if we’re gonna get on the bible stuff - the bible also commands us not to wear clothing with more than one type of fiber. but somehow, we have managed to move on. cut the anachronistic crap, grow up, and let’s devot our time and energy to something that might actually help people.
# March 17th, 2007 at 8:57 pmWTF are you talking about? Theft, rape and pedophilia are illegal crimes. Being gay is not illegal. That was the most inapplicable anaology you could have made.
# March 19th, 2007 at 7:35 amWell well well, look what I’ve been missing….
Dino and Simon you guys can both put down yer protest signs. I could care less about the gays in the military. But since you can’t seem to decipher blatant humor from seriousness, I guess I’ll humor you two.
Allrighty then…let’s copver the “race card.” I do not recall my EVER saying a damned thing about “negros” at all. Interesting that you would suddenly start ranting about white on black racism. Apparently that is the only form of racism in the world today. Wait a second…doens’t that mean you were just being racist against whites? So now only us crackers are racist SOB’s? Damn…(to quote a very hilarious comedian…believe it or not he’s black too) All this time I thought that being racist was just some stupid decision that one person makes….but all this time I was genetically indisposed ot being racist because I’m white Sucks to be me I guess.
Just so you know, Dino, racism comes in all colors. Don’t be so closed minded..sheesh. I hate the “Race card” in general because it’s a cop out. But by all means if there is a legitimate concern regarding some crime of racism, then go ahead and prove the crime. But if you just don’t like what someone does and come back with this, “Oh you’re just doing that/saying that/ etc. because Im _________” That line is a bullshit line and everyone knows it.
But you apparantely believe it so I guess I should be like you and “tolerate and respect” your beliefs by simply adopting them as my own. Oh wow this is so easy. Maybe we should take the same stance on people who bomb our countries. Oh they just hate America, so we should respect their beliefs by corroding the country from the inside by adopting their ideals. What a great melting pot we have. We’ll be equak grounds with everyone in no time, yippeee. Third world status here I come. Can’t wait. Oh China’s communist/socialist? Then we need to be equal. Quick everyone go buy a Che’ shirt.
Well…that was fun. Dino and Simon, you two are, I’m sure, very wonderful human beings and all, but you are wasting your time coming on here and trying to make us “accept gays” everywhere we go. We have our beliefs and you need to tolerate that and accept us for who we are. Don’t hate. Appreciate. Tolerate. And then celebrate our diversity.
Oh and get a stinkin sense of humor while yer at it. Look to Guav for a prime example of an educated debater. He disagrees with almost everything on here but he doenst get on here and pull stupid rants like screamin about racism n shit.
# March 19th, 2007 at 9:29 amIn the ladder of human degredation, sexual perversion is the bottom rung. It is a result of man’s sin nature taking hold and severely twisting him away from the very natural orientation that he was ment to go. wether it be with same sex, with children, or with animals… it is an abomination to nature, and more importantly to God.
For any queer to claim that they are natural is absurd, as it goes entirely against the direction of procreation.
When a person’s mind is that twisted with perversion, only bad things can result.
# March 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pmGuav
Did I say they were illegal? What did I say? Since you are so good at reading what I didn’t say, I’ll repeat myself. I said homosexuality is a perversion. The items I listed above, are they perversions? Homosexuality was once illegal just like abortion. Just because it is “legal” doesn’t make it right. If “legality” is your moral compass then you might as well stick your finger in the wind instead of looking both ways before crossing the street.
I can’t speak for the military but in my mind I wouldn’t want to serve with a homo. Being “eye rapped” would have serious conotations IF we were talking about one man in a bunker of women. If homos are truly hard wired to want sex with another man then WHY is there any difference? Why not let men dress in the women’s locker room as well.
# March 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pmOckham’s Razor is the basis for defeating that ridiculous “Oh I was born gay” statement. Just take a look at the basic anatomy of male and female human beings. There’s only one combination of these that produces offspring. Thus Ockham’s Razor proves that being homosexual is unnatural. Another word for unnatural is wrong.So logically….being a homosexual is being wrong.
You can sit on here and debate all day about your ideas and how we should accept them and how gays are just normal people, but the fact is…you’re wrong. But by all means go ahead and continue in your homosexuality, I could care less. It’s not me you have to answer to.
But you have been warned of the consequences, so there is no excuse when the time comes. Have a good life.
# March 19th, 2007 at 4:27 pmSimon: I must say I have missed our debates.
They are not the only ones guilty of some sort of sin. Are we free moral agents or are we puppets of some cosmic dictator? Choice is something that we all possess. How is free choice absurd.
Did I choose to be “straight”? I can honestly say that I chose to ask my wife to marry me, SEX had nothing to do with my love for her but everything to do with the normal process of life. I chose to be normal. Men wanting sex with men serves only to gratify the base instincts of lustfilled minds. Effeminate men doesn’t mean they are homo, it means they have traits of feminacy. Usually feminacy is learned or adapted behavior. Scripture condemns both and also sexual sins between a man and a woman, whoremongoring to name one.
Did you choose to breate? No. It is hardwired in you to breathe. Did you choose not to murder someone today? If you were tempted to and didn’t then I’d say you chose not to murder someone. What if everything IN you told you to lie about being sick and not work? You have choices.
I wasn’t going to bring out the Book on you Simon. I was going to argue practicalness, but since you went there I just want to say a few things. First I am a little shocked at your lack of arguement. You’ve never stooped this low in your debating.
Mixed Fiber- Scripture doesn’t condemn it. In Lev 19:19 it says it is something the Israelites shouldn’t do in order to maintain their separate identity among heathen nations. If it were condemned then the priesthood would not of work Wool/Linen mixtures, but they did. As a follower of Christ, I live a separate life from the world. The New Covenant that Jesus Christ made strictly requests that I live a life submitted to Christ and not to the natural courses. I should live separate from the world but still be in the world.
Did you know that scripture teaches us to wash our hands, bury our waste, and other sanitary things? Long before anyone knew germs existed God told them how to avoid diseases caused by hygene. Why should I devote ANY time to this subject? Obviously you think it is an important issue not to be concerned with or you would have been silent and allowed others to speak. I have met people who have come out of homosexuality, adultry, and other sexual sins. I desire to help them come out, what are you doing to help?
# March 19th, 2007 at 4:56 pmWell said Chad!
# March 19th, 2007 at 5:25 pmChad… got two posts awaiting your benevolent approval.
# March 19th, 2007 at 5:46 pmCS: like I said, your analogy is FRICKING ABSURD. You asked if the following people should be able to serve:
No, obviously, because theft is illegal .
No, obviously, because murder is illegal .
No, obviously, because rape is illegal .
No, obviously, because child molestation is illegal. Those people should not be able to serve in the military because they are criminals. They are barred from serving not because their actions are “perversions,” but because their actions are illegal as they deny another person of their life, sanctity, property, or basic rights.
You’re correct in that laws do not dictate morality, of course—slavery was legal at one point—but morality has nothing to do with laws at all. Homosexuality is not illegal because it does not infringe on someone else’s bodily rights. We do not legislate morality—religious extremists like the Taliban do that (and I guess you).
So no, there is absolutely no comparison in the context you were using, your analogy is ridiculous.
# March 20th, 2007 at 10:45 amHeath C.:
So basically what you’re saying is that you could choose to be attracted to another man’s hairy butt. You are admitting that hot gay humping is just a choice away for you.
Well, speak for yourself, my sexually-ambiguous friend, because my sexual orientation was never a choice I made, I just always was. How old were you when you made the conscious decision to like women instead of men?
Well no, actually, “wrong” is NOT another word for “unnatural” according to any dictionary or thesaurus in the English language that I’m aware of—they are not synonyms at all, because they are entirely different things. You’re confusing biology and morality. That something is “unnatural”—outside the parameters of normal development—does not make it “wrong.”
Let’s look at your comment like this, and tell me if you still support it:
“Just take a look at the basic anatomy of male and female human beings—they all have two legs. We need them to get around. Thus Ockham’s Razor proves that being a paraplegic is unnatural. Another word for unnatural is wrong. So logically … being a paraplegic is being wrong. You can sit on here and debate all day about your ideas and how we should accept them and how paraplegics are just normal people, but the fact is … you’re wrong.”
Hopefully you can see that calling paraplegics “wrong” is fundamentally absurd. Unnatural? Sure, in some respect, paraplegics are unnatural—but that has absolutely no moral connotation at all. See, I agree with you that homosexuality is a deviation from the “normal” parameters of human development. But being born deaf, or retarded, with bad eyesight, diabetes, with a deformed hand, autistic, with an exceptionally high IQ, or albino are all deviations from the average norms—but none of them are “wrong.”
Furthermore, there are thousands of variations that occur in humans in every single aspect of both our physical and mental state, but you’d have me believe that deviations in our sexuality never occur? That that, alone among all the other variations that occur in nature, is a choice?
Ockham’s Razor, if applied correctly, says differently.
# March 20th, 2007 at 10:46 amChad … I got two posts awaiting your benevolent approval also. I’m logged in and everything!
# March 20th, 2007 at 10:52 amweird. i figgered a logged in user could by-pass the moderation list. but i found the word that was causing the trouble and removed it. it was ’sex’. shhhh… don’t say that out loud.
# March 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pmYou dictator. You have “shoes” in your banned list! What if I want to talk about JJ’s shoes?
# March 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pmOh hell Heath, I meant to say “my sexual orientation was never a choice I made, I just always was straight,” Lest my omission give anyone the wrong idea.
Reading it again it looks like I was saying I didn’t choose to be gay, looks like I made a funny of myself. Stupid me.
# March 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pmguav -
yea… i got alot of awesome shoe spam for the longest time. it might be safe to remove at this point, but honestly… cuttin a man down for his shoes? thats gay. 
# March 20th, 2007 at 5:49 pmguav,
So what would you say to a child rapist or a horse rapist, when he explains to you that “he can’t help it, he was just made that way?”.
And don’t try to tell me that’s natural.
# March 20th, 2007 at 5:54 pmGuav. It is only absurd because you are making an analogy that I did not make. My analogy is about perversion. I know you do not wish to see the analogy because you want to argue a point. It is like this. Perversion is perversion. Perversion will lead an individual to act according to their own wishes. Perversion is character weakness and character weakness in combat is a serious flaw…
The law carries an essence of morality. As you know many cultures used their religious beliefs to establish civil law. No one can escape that. To follow your trajectory of thought, I am fundemental and the Book I value has been used to establish many laws. To guess at me being extemists is ludicrous because I have yet to declare that ALL homos should die. I never will declare that. It is their choice to practise whatever they want BEHIND closed doors. Keep their private life private.
To argue legalities is rediculous. Who besides you is making that argument?
# March 20th, 2007 at 6:30 pmGuav - Yah I see your point there, in my wrong choice of words. I agree with you in that I most likely would not stand a chance in trying to argue with someone using any form of”morality” because we all do not hold the same values period. That whole paraplegic analogy kinda shut mine down. Touche’.
# March 21st, 2007 at 5:43 amChad, as I said, there are thousands of things that deviate from the “normal” parameters of human development, but they still occur in nature. Are they “natural” in the context of how we’re “supposed” to function? No. Do they occur naturally? Yes.
For example, it’s quite natural for a certain percentage of people to be born blind—it clearly occurs in nature. But are we supposed to be blind? Of course not. We are born with eyes. They are supposed to work. But sometimes they don’t.
You guys are having a problem understanding that things that do not function correctly in their normal purpose are “unnatural” only in that they are “at variance with what is normal or to be expected,” but that does not mean that they don’t occur naturally—”existing in or formed by nature”—deviations from the norm are not necessarily artificial.
What would I do if a horse rapist told me me that biologically he was born that way? I’d believe him. Yet morally I’d condemn him. And there’s nothing contradictory about that. Like I said, you guys are confusing biology and morality—not everything that is biologically “unnatural” is morally “wrong.” And not everything that is biologically “natural” is morally “right.” One has nothing to do with the other.
Chad, could you choose to be sexually attracted to horses? If not, why?
# March 21st, 2007 at 9:46 amWith a sinful nature, and born to hate God, I could easily be devoured by sexual lusts and deviate away from what God intended. But I like to think that I’m a repentant sinner, who relies on Gods mercy and forgiveness, and struggles to stay on the straight and narrow.
did that make any sense to you?
# March 21st, 2007 at 11:46 amGuav: Good point about the biology and the morality. If it were truly that way then you’d be right. However, the is NO proof of a homo gene. None. There isn’t proof of pedafelia genes. No where. You can’t point to a genetic process that makes a man say, “Wow, that horse looks good, I think I wan’t to rape it.” That is not a genetic process. That is a mental process with a personal decision. As a believer in God I must believe that God made us without a genetic predispossition toward sin. Our natures are fallen but not our genes.
Also I left a post for you above.
# March 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pmNo Gay guys in the U.S. Army I hope?
# March 21st, 2007 at 1:58 pmCS:
Dude, you were asking if people who admitted to illegal crimes should be allowed to serve in the military—it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not someone who is not a criminal should be allowed to serve—it’s irrelevant. Perverted? So what? Perversion is not illegal, and are you seriously trying to tell me that hundreds of thousands of heterosexual soldiers have no perversions? It’s ridiculous.
Nobody is suggesting that they should be allowed to have sex in public dude—sex in public is illegal regardless of whether you hump dudes or chicks. All sex should be “behind closed doors.” All that’s being argued is that they should be able to acknowledge that they are gay—nobody is talking about putting on gay sex shows on base.
So what? We only just recently discovered the gene that causes blindness—what’s your point? I have a newsflash for you: we don’t have all the answers. At one point we didn’t know that bacteria existed. We still can’t cure cancer. But someday we will. That we cannot currently identify a gene that causes homosexuality doesn’t automatically mean that it is a free choice that any of us can make.
And I understand and respect that, although I’m sure you understand that it doesn’t mean anything to me as far as this debate goes. It’s your belief, but it’s not a rational argument.
Heath C.: All I really shut down is your contention that homosexuality’s immorality stems from whether or not their condition is “normal” or not. You’re entitled to think homosexual acts are immoral without basing your argument on the natural order. Nowhere have I argued that homosexuality is not immoral, because as you noted, everyone has a different idea about what is moral and what isn’t.
That’s why I don’t understand everyone wanting Pace to apologize for his remarks—it’s his damn opinion, and he’s entitled to it. It seems like they don’t really want him to apologize for saying it, they want him to apologize for feeling it. Whether or not he should have said it in his official capacity is another story I guess …
Chad:
Yeah—you just admitted that you could choose to be sexually attracted to horses.
# March 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pmComment awaiting moderation I guess
# March 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pmOh brother I missed a doozy, did we cover nurture vs. nature and the actual meaning of natural? LOL!
# March 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 pmI think my latest post of Thursday night got dumped in the abiss.
Let me know if I should recreate it.
Stevil: Nurture vs Nature wasn’t touched on. We discussed nature.
# March 24th, 2007 at 6:02 amWhat happened to the simple days a few years ago?
TATTERS AND MUSTARD!!!!!!!
# March 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pmYah I agree with RW…we need to completely get rid of any seriousness whatsoever on this site and stick to pure satire and comedy. Lets just make fun of gay people instead. And then soon as someone comes on here and says “Hey that’s not nice!” We just call em gay till they leave. That’ll show em.
# March 24th, 2007 at 5:19 pmGuav & CS - I looked through Akismet spam filter and didnt’ see anything from either of you guys.
I went through and deleted alot of the words that i had in the incinerator, so maybe this won’t happen so much anymore.
sorry about that.
Road Warrior - yer a fag.
# March 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pmAn interesting Zogby poll from December found that nearly one in four U.S. troops (23%) say they know for sure that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian, and 59% of them said they learned about the person’s sexual orientation directly from the individual. Further, the poll found that more than half of troops who know a gay soldier in their unit say that the person’s sexual orientation is well known by others.
And that’s just fine by most. The survey found that 3 out of 4 troops say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Of the 20% who said they are uncomfortable around gays and lesbians, only 5% are “very” uncomfortable, while 15% are “somewhat” uncomfortable. Just 2% of troops said knowing that gays are not allowed to serve openly was an important reason in their decision to join the military.
Maybe once you are out in the field it’s more “don’t ask, don’t care.”
# March 24th, 2007 at 10:27 pmNah Chad, I don’t have any missing comments, all mine are posted.
# March 24th, 2007 at 10:28 pmGuav hit the nail on the head. That’s exactly what it is. We just don’t care. There is so much bullshit going on everywhaere that you learn what to worry about in the military, like whether or not you are going to get to go to that next duty station or not. You learn fairly quickly that noone really gives a rats ass about gays in the military.
Family Guy did a funny lil joke a while back that pretty much harped on the same thing. Noone cares anymore. Stewie and Brian were in some military camp and were trying to get out, so they started making out in front of everyone and saying how gay they were….everyone just kept walking by and then some high ranking officer comes up and says “Can I join?” Funny as it was, it was very true. Being homosexual in the military doesn’t have any consequences anymore. I can tell you right now from experience we had a very open gay guy over in my last unit. Everyone and their mother new he was gay, but noone cared or did anything about it. He was just gay.
It’s just like America to move on with this one too. We got bored of throwing hissy fits back and forth about them being able to stay, them not being able to stay, all that BS. And just like every other fad in the US….we got over it and moved on to the next big thing.
There’s actually only a small amount of people who even talk about this anymore. Of course theres always the “ooooh hey thats a tender subject.” douche bag, but the truth is….people in the military just don’t care anymore. It’s all of the “Old School Army” guys thats still harp on it. But this is the new Army…the Temp Army….and we all just don’t give a shit anymore.
# March 25th, 2007 at 7:40 amdang! i missed a doozy! i kept getting scared off the site by that yoga guy playing twister ya had at the top for so long
# March 26th, 2007 at 4:27 amYeah, dang indeed - been without internet for a while so i sort of missed the boat on this one.
Going back to one thing that Heath mentioned about racism -
“Interesting that you would suddenly start ranting about white on black racism. Apparently that is the only form of racism in the world today.”
this argument is a ’straw man’ - you have distorted my argument to make it easy to refute. It would indeed be stupid if i believed that only white people were racist, fortunately for me, i don’t and i never said i did. only you did. I don’t want to start on the whole topic of american race relations because it’s just too complex for me to address properly in a few paragraphs, but in general i’d say that you should not try to make a black and white (pun intended) issue.
the following paraphrased statements have something in common:
“black people are not treated differently the white people”,
“black people and white people are the same”
“white people are better than black people”
“black people arent racist”
“white people are all racist”
“our government/institutions should treat black people better than white people because they’re black”
“our government shouldn’t do anything to help solve the problems of the black population”
They’re all stupid and incorrect generalizations. it’s not that simple, never has been, and never will be. Heath, if you want to discuss race relations in a specific context, i’m game, and you may suggest whatever example you like, but I don’t want to trade abstractions about race, because no matter what I say, i’ll be wrong, and so will you.
# March 26th, 2007 at 7:50 amoh and to clarify:
race issues are similar and relevant to homosexuality in the sense that, as i say, they are both ambiguous distinctions.
there are black people who fulfill all the negative stereotypes - “gangstas”, drug dealers, are uneducated and stupid, use the race card, etc. and there are others who defy all of the sterotypes. there are also white people who fulfill all the black stereotypes (except perhaps for the race card thing, although you could call the cronyism that favors white males in some businesses, universities, etc. to a ‘race card’ of a more subtle kind)
there are gays who are flamboyant, engage in promicuous, immoral sexual behavior perverted, who shove the fact that they’re gay in the face of heteros and demand that they approve of it, and there are others who keep their sexual practice private (even secret), have committed healthy relationships, and don’t bother anyone. there are also heteros who are immoral, etc.
unfortunately, the vital shades of grey are often forgotten/ignrored in modern political discussion, and every situation becomes a for/against good/bad black/white decision. it’s a shame life is so much more complicated.
# March 26th, 2007 at 8:05 amChad if u could just ban me from your site before I pass out from gayness…..tha’d be great………
RW for life…..Army of freakin one baby!!…Wes-side!!!!!!!
# March 26th, 2007 at 11:46 amRW forgot to take his ritalin today please excuse him..
# March 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pmSimple Simon - I wasn’t trying to get into a discussion on racism….I just thought your lil examples were stupid. Generalizing racism to white on black. Good job. Anyway, I’m done with this gay ass conversation…yer right about one thing. You’ll just always be wrong about it. Keep on keepin on.
# March 26th, 2007 at 3:37 pmRW has NEVER remembered hit ritalin.
# March 27th, 2007 at 4:39 am*his ritalin
# March 27th, 2007 at 4:39 amGood response Heath, you’ve raised the tone of this gay ass conversation. sorry for trying to engage you in some kind of genuinely involved discussion instead of another rant/counter-rant battle, i’ll remember to avoid it in future. as for generalizing white on black racism, i don’t know what you’re on about, you threw the ol’ race card in to the ring.
CS,
I had a chance to read the above stuff more completely, so first my disagreement: your appeal to the idea of “normal” (”I chose to be normal”) is misguided. While I wouldn’t say that there is no such thing as ‘normal’ in a given context, it’s a very slippery concept; not the sort of thing I would be comfortable condemning people for. abnormal/unnatural does not mean bad (i think this has been covered)
The more interesting point you made was about the distinction between intent and action. some questions: i don’t know whether you meant to address this, but would you be ok with a gay celibate? someone who had the desires but did not act on them… and is a promiscuous gay person morally worse than a promiscuous straight person, or do you consider gayness wrong because you associate with other morally wrong behaviors? Is simply liking your own sex bad, or is it that you associate other perverted or wrong ideas/behaviors with homosexuality?
# March 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pmI have read your site in the past as I admired your support of gun rights. But this is rediculous. Rights for some, none for others? If you expect people to be tolerant of your rights, why stomp on someone else’s? And to those posting about “stomping” on gays? What kind of weak insecurities generate that desire?
I won’t be visiting your site anymore.
# March 29th, 2007 at 5:58 pmim sorry… i take all back. i do, i promise. if only you’ll stay, i’ll say whatever you want me to say, and I’ll only talk about tolerance, and how we should love everybody, fags, islamic fascists, etc. what do i need to do to make you stay? it’s very important to me.
and before you go, steve… please tell me where exactly you draw that tolerance line? Are you bashing my right to speak out against gays? why don’t you show a little tolerance next time.
# March 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pmDon’t go to gay sites to read about gun rights.
# March 30th, 2007 at 7:40 amDon’t go to gun sites to read about gay rights.
guav - i feel so pigeon holed right now… i like to think of PTA as a portal to express my deep inner feelings and emotions. its not just a gun site. how prejudice of you.
# March 30th, 2007 at 8:20 amYou know what I’m sayin’ though.
# March 30th, 2007 at 11:04 am“Don’t go to gay sites to read about gun rights.”
Don’t go to gun sites to read about gay rights.
Short and sweet……like juice………….props to u guava guy………
P.S. Are u half juicige or a hundred percent juice?
# March 31st, 2007 at 7:31 pmRW - are you half baked, or 100% baked?
# April 1st, 2007 at 10:18 amSince I served 21 years in the United States Army I have something to say.
Since gay’s were openly allowed to shower next me at the FOB in Afghan and Iraq, then if I displayed a tendency towards cross dressing could I then shower in the ladies facilities and be protected by this “dont ask dont tell” policy ?
I’d rather have spent my time in the ladies facilities then next to the harry legged men in my outfit.
# April 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
# April 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 pmI hope you see the difference between Pace saying that homosexual conduct is immoral and wrong and homosexuals are immoral and wrong.
That’s a very good point.
# April 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pmThats basically saying that people aren’t “evil” their conduct is “evil”.
In my book, they mean the same thing. only “evil” people conduct themselves in a “evil” manner.
# April 3rd, 2007 at 6:56 pmSimon. Welcome back buddy. I thought maybe you were ticked off at me or something. Anyway, to touch on what I had tried to say above. Haven’t had time to reread or anything so forgive me if I miss something.
Normal being defined as natural or conforming to a standard. If we see, a farmer hitchingt a plow to a Porshe, we’d say- that isn’t normal. Reason being it goes against the construction of the Porshe. It would be a waste of time. It would be queer. Homosexuality serves only one shallow purpose, to gratify lust.
Celebate homosexuality is like celebate adultry. Both a wrong. Only God can read the heart.
Skygod made a point that I made on the deleted post. I’ll further it a tad. If homosexuality was genetic then that would mean that they can’t change and they shouldn’t be allowed to shower with men with the “same parts” but not the same genetic makeup. Sounds strange, well it is strange. Guav will point out that we only know a fraction about genetics. I agree. However, if you find a gene for homo’s then what about pedafilia? Excluding legalities. Wouldn’t you have to not punish them if the were born that way? How far are you willing to take it Simon? Talk about a slippery slope.
# April 3rd, 2007 at 7:33 pmNo, that is incorrect. It doesn’t matter if genetics is to blame or not for pedophilia—if someone breaks the laws of this society and infringes on another person’s civil or human rights, they have to be punished for it, regardless of whether they were born that way or not.
People are born brain damaged and sometimes are so mentally handicapped that they are violent towards others. These people are kept in institutions, locked up away from the rest of society. They were born that way, yet we have absolutely no choice but to isolate them from everyone else, in effect punishing them for something they have no control over. It’s unfortunate (for them), yet it’s the only alternative.
Your contention that if pedophilia was found to be genetic means we wouldn’t be able to punish people who raped children is ridiculous—we have a legal and moral responsibility to keep people who attack, rape, harm or kill others away from free society. This will not change, regardless of whether or not any particular behavior is found to be genetic.
In any case, your argument is a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Consequences: You’re arguing that homosexuality must not be a genetic predisposition because if it was, maybe pedophilia is too, and the if pedophilia is a genetic predisposition then we can’t punish them (says you) and that is just too horrible a thought to bear, so it cannot possibly be genetic—the consequences are just too troubling.
It’s also known as “wishful thinking,” and it has no bearing on truth whatsoever. Are homosexuality and pedophilia genetic or chosen? We don’t know for sure, but whether or not you like or dislike the moral or legal consequences of any given conclusion is irrelevant to the situation.
# April 5th, 2007 at 7:03 am