Gays in the Military Will Cause a Draft

[ClydeR]

President Obama says (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/) that he would eventually like to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that keeps homosexuals out of the military. But a prominent researcher of the history of homosexuals in the military says that removing the ban would lead to the draft.


MEDIA ADVISORY, Jan. 27 /Christian Newswire/ -- "Repealing the ban on open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military would be a mistake of historic proportions." warns a Massachusetts attorney and pastor who authored a book on homosexuality in Nazi Germany. Dr. Scott Lively is co-author, along with Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams, of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party.

"Certainly there would be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military," said Lively, "probably leading to the reinstatement of compulsory service. (Watch the anti-war Lefties become supporters of the draft when it's used to remedy "homophobia")

More... (http://www.christiannewswire.com/index.php?module=releases&task=view&releaseID=9288)

Dr. Lively points out how there would never have been Nazis and Hitler if Germany hadn't had homosexuals in its military.

[Drew2]

Holy shit, kill yourself.

[Euler]

Holy shit, kill yourself.

says the nazi lover.

[Nieninque]

says the nazi lover.

Grats on making ClydeR look smart.

[Euler]

ironic, considering your sig.

[Stanley Burrell]

You know, if gay males not being allowed in the military was the sole powder keg that sparked the U.S. draft, I'd be for it. Just because of how fucking awesomely absurd it would be.

Switch up the Christian Newswire/forge other media sources for your articles because 1% of my barely functioning cerebral cortex still thinks you actually are an arch-conservative.

[Hulkein]

he would eventually like to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that keeps homosexuals out of the military.

You actually think it "keeps homosexuals out of the military"?

I'm not saying whether or not I agree with the policy because there are good arguments on both ends, but who the hell actually thinks it keeps gays out? That isn't even the point of the policy.

[Fallen]

The argument I read against repealing it is it would give homosexuals ammunition to use for legalizing gay unions and what not. Don't ask me to explain it, I just glanced at the article on Fox News. That makes more sense than the above argument, I suppose.

[Ravenstorm]

You realize the Nazis had some of the sharpest uniforms in modern history. There's a reason for this.

[Daniel]

The argument I read against repealing it is it would give homosexuals ammunition to use for legalizing gay unions and what not. Don't ask me to explain it, I just glanced at the article on Fox News. That makes more sense than the above argument, I suppose.

Wait. What?

[Fallen]

Wait. What?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479952,00.html

Note: I don't give a flying fuck about gay people or their right to marry. I'm just posting a link.

[Daniel]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479952,00.html

Note: I don't give a flying fuck about gay people or their right to marry. I'm just posting a link.

Yea. I'm aware that he intends to repeal it, I was more wait, whating about the issue of Gay unions.

[Fallen]

As an aside, Fox News is pretty damn slanted for a big-time news website. I thought the liberal media was bad, but yeesh. What I read was crazy bias. I like my influencial leanings to be more subtle and subliminal. Anyone suggest a better news site for a slightly conservative leaning reader?

[Gan]

President Obama says (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/) that he would eventually like to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that keeps homosexuals out of the military. But a prominent researcher of the history of homosexuals in the military says that removing the ban would lead to the draft.



Dr. Lively points out how there would never have been Nazis and Hitler if Germany hadn't had homosexuals in its military.

Pastor Lively's whole argument is based on the premise that the majority of men serving in our military are homophobic to the point where the few gay men who actually want to serve will run them out.

Thats stupidly funny.

[Parkbandit]

As an aside, Fox News is pretty damn slanted for a big-time news website. I thought the liberal media was bad, but yeesh. What I read was crazy bias. I like my influencial leanings to be more subtle and subliminal. Anyone suggest a better news site for a slightly conservative leaning reader?


What was slanted about that article? I didn't see a single thing and I'm pretty in-tune with biased reporting.

[Fallen]

What was slanted about that article? I didn't see a single thing and I'm pretty in-tune with biased reporting.

The article itself was an editorial, so of course it should be written from the standpoint of someone expressing an opinion. I meant more the website as a whole, which read like a news release from the republican party at times.

[Parkbandit]

The article itself was an editorial, so of course it should be written from the standpoint of someone expressing an opinion. I meant more the website as a whole, which read like a news release from the republican party at times.

Ah... I only read the article you posted... and for an editorial, it was extremely unbiased.

I view Fox News for Conservatives like NBC, CBS and ABC news is for Liberals. Spoon feeding you their viewpoint and what they want you to believe.

I've yet to read/watch a truly unbiased source that simply reported the news without their own slant. I take them all in (well, except CBS where I simply can't stand Couric in the evening.. yet liked her in the morning...) and then form my own opinions.

[Clove]

I think the Christian Science Monitor is pretty neutral.

[Fallen]

Ah... I only read the article you posted... and for an editorial, it was extremely unbiased.

I view Fox News for Conservatives like NBC, CBS and ABC news is for Liberals. Spoon feeding you their viewpoint and what they want you to believe.

I've yet to read/watch a truly unbiased source that simply reported the news without their own slant. I take them all in (well, except CBS where I simply can't stand Couric in the evening.. yet liked her in the morning...) and then form my own opinions.

I listen to NPR and usually read CNN online, but I will readily admit I am not a news junkie. I just like to stay abreast of current issues in the event they arise as talking points as much for general interest. That is usually why I ask more questions than try to make any strong points or arguments in the political folders. I wonder if a truly non-bias (or as strong of an attempt at one as possible) would last in today's environment. Without any slant at all I imagine it would come off as extremely dry. Hell, one could even see non-biased reporting of stories as extremely bias overall if they pick and choose which news stories to run. It is likely quite difficult to give an equal mix of news without implying an overall opinion of world/US affairs.

[Parkbandit]

I think the Christian Science Monitor is pretty neutral.


Yea.. if they weren't pushing their religion on me!

[CrystalTears]

Yea.. if they weren't pushing their religion on me!
What exactly do you expect to happen on a religious site? :tongue:

(I know it's not really, I just like the irony of it.)

[ClydeR]

[FONT=Arial]The argument I read against repealing it is it would give homosexuals ammunition to use for legalizing gay unions and what not.

Oh I completely agree with you that it would pose that risk, but I don't think it is the greatest risk.


The article itself was an editorial, so of course it should be written from the standpoint of someone expressing an opinion.

Sure they're biased in their editorializing but not in their reporting. This article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-end-militarys-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/) is a good example of how Fox is unbiased in their reporting on this issue. :)

[ClydeR]

You realize the Nazis had some of the sharpest uniforms in modern history. There's a reason for this.

You should definitely post some photos.

[NocturnalRob]

You should definitely post some photos.
http://geoffanhorn.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/charlie_nazi-uniform1.jpg

[DeV]

But a prominent researcher of the history of homosexuals in the military says that removing the ban would lead to the draft.
Yeah, the draft would be a result of people like him getting their knickers all twisted up in a bunch. It's amazing how some of the arguments used against granting gays open inclusion were similarly used against blacks in opposition to desegregating the military once upon a time. (erosion of unit cohesion, etc.)

Removing the ban wouldn't do shit with respect to the thousands of gays and lesbians already secretly and openly serving. Not to mention those who have already demonstrated distinguished service in multiple sectors. Either way, public acceptance of gays in the military has improved drastically over the years and while the odds of any reversal being instated is still up for debate, people willing to fight and perhaps die for our freedom should be allowed to freely be themselves.

[Clove]

people willing to fight and perhaps die for our freedom should......ignore ClydeR.

[Ignot]

I'm no soldier but if I was in a fox hole with a super model chick and a dude I'm probably going to save the super model first. With that logic, I don't mind gays in the military at all because he will probably be more likely to save my ass (no homo). Assuming he finds me attractive I guess. Yeah, being in a platoon full of gay dudes would suck in the down time but would probably be awesome during battle.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I'm no soldier but if I was in a fox hole with a super model chick and a dude I'm probably going to save the super model first. With that logic, I don't mind gays in the military at all because he will probably be more likely to save my ass (no homo). Assuming he finds me attractive I guess. Yeah, being in a platoon full of gay dudes would suck in the down time but would probably be awesome during battle.

I would just pull my rifle on both of them and use them as human shields as I ran for it. <Insert something here where I argue with ClydeR about his fictional point of view, and attempt to use reason to convince him>

[ClydeR]

I'm no soldier but if I was in a fox hole with a super model chick and a dude I'm probably going to save the super model first. With that logic, I don't mind gays in the military at all because he will probably be more likely to save my ass (no homo).

You win the humility award!

[Daniel]

I'm no soldier but if I was in a fox hole with a super model chick and a dude I'm probably going to save the super model first. With that logic, I don't mind gays in the military at all because he will probably be more likely to save my ass (no homo). Assuming he finds me attractive I guess. Yeah, being in a platoon full of gay dudes would suck in the down time but would probably be awesome during battle.

Yea. Some super model chick is going to be in the infantry.

When bullets are flying and comes are going off, the last thing on your mind is who can I oggle right now.

[ClydeR]

When bullets are flying and comes are going off, the last thing on your mind is who can I oggle right now.

But most of the time the bullets aren't flying. You're a military man, Daniel. Tell us if you think having open homosexuals in the military would work with today's young enlisted men. I respect your opinion and will accept whatever you say.

[Daniel]

But most of the time the bullets aren't flying. You're a military man, Daniel. Tell us if you think having open homosexuals in the military would work with today's young enlisted men. I respect your opinion and will accept whatever you say.

I think if you make it a rule and hold people accountable then they will deal with it. The miltiary, more than any other organization, takes people for what they are worth.

Yea, you'll have some problems, but at the end of the day people will accept those who can do their job when it really matters.

[Khariz]

Let me give you guys an alternative perspective on why I think allowing Open Gays into the military will actually improve certain aspects, rather than make them worse:

Yes, I'm going back to the topic of security clearances. You see, the biggest factor in determining whether or not someone can obtain a clearance, is the determination of whether there is something in the person's background that could be used against them to Blackmail them or to Coerce them into doing something they otherwise would not do.

Such reasons can include, but are not limited to financial problems, criminal problems, foreign preference issues, general skeletons in the closet, adultery, and yes, homosexuality. But unlike many of the other reasons, homosexuality is usually an artificially engineered Blackmail issue.

Why? Well because by definition, you can't be blackmailed over something that is common knowledge among your peers/family/co-workers, but in the military, where there is a don't ask, don't tell policy, you are FORCED to keep your homosexuality a secret for fear of losing your job if you are open about. That FORCES you to have a big black stain on your background as far as obtaining a security clearance goes, which is stupid because wanting to put sausage in consenting assess is no good reason for you to not work on a certain computer system, or safeguard certain classified documents.

I never thought I'd come out on the side of open gays in the military, but I have an odd perspective on it.

[ClydeR]

I think if you make it a rule and hold people accountable then they will deal with it. The miltiary, more than any other organization, takes people for what they are worth.

Yea, you'll have some problems, but at the end of the day people will accept those who can do their job when it really matters.

I know I said I would accept your opinion, but I think you might not have been aware of the following argument against allowing teh homosexuals in the military. It's big on the internets today.

A helicopter that is rescuing injured soldiers could cause a lot of wind that would blow around spilled bodily fluids which could land on an opening in another soldier's body and could cause that soldier to get AIDS if the injured soldier had AIDS.


“Many GIs are fundamentally opposed to the idea [of openly gay troops] especially due to HIV/AIDS, which takes time to appear in lab tests but can infect you upon contact,” a retired non-commissioned officer (NCO) in Army Special Forces remarked. “Imagine this scenario: There are mass casualties requiring medivac and the helicopter’s rotor-wash, as you know, throws sand, debris, and blood as well as other bodily fluids all over the place. Guess what—any blood or bodily fluid residue, no matter how minute, that hits an open wound or moist area including the eyes will be a conduit for transmission of the virus. Therefore, the casualty count increases not because of battlefield injury but cross-contamination.”

“Somehow,” added this veteran of conflicts in Central America and Afghanistan, “this factor is often overlooked by the Left and their fellow conspirators in the press.”

More... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29203407/)

[sst]

A helicopter that is rescuing injured soldiers could cause a lot of wind that would blow around spilled bodily fluids which could land on an opening in another soldier's body and could cause that soldier to get AIDS if the injured soldier had AIDS.

That would be great except that in the military you are required to be tested for HIV on a yearly basis, and if you are positive you don’t serve in a combat related MOS for that reason. Not only gay people get AIDS fyi.

[Faent]

ROFL. Daniel, can you respond to this argument? If not, I'm going with ClydeR on this one.

[Euler]

sst, no feeda da troll.

[sst]

They are fun to poke = /

[Daniel]

ROFL. Daniel, can you respond to this argument? If not, I'm going with ClydeR on this one.

No. I'm still in stunned awe of this argument.

[sst]

A helicopter that is rescuing injured soldiers could cause a lot of wind that would blow around spilled bodily fluids which could land on an opening in another soldier's body and could cause that soldier to get AIDS if the injured soldier had AIDS.

I needed to add, combined with your other thread today and this one… you're a fucking retard.

Most people in the military will run into a hail of bullets to pull a buddy out of a truck or to get him out of the line of fire, do you really think they give a shit if the guy has HIV or not, or if that will even cross his mind?

[Faent]

If gays were allowed in the military, you could likely turn a significant profit by inventing and manufacturing some kind of non-toxic anal lube that stains skin permanently. This would be highly useful as a self-defense tool in the barracks. If some homo tried to stick you in the ass in the middle of the night, their penis would glow purple during group sex, er, shower time. And then you and your hetero buddies could gank them. What do you think of this solution, ClydeR?

[Tea & Strumpets]

Klingon Facepalm

People giving serious responses to ClydeR never ceases to amaze me. His impersonation is so obvious and retarded, but somehow people completely overlook the hundred clues per sentence and try to respond with logic and reason.

But I can't believe he didn't take Daniel's word for it!

[Faent]

But I can't believe he didn't take Daniel's word for it!

Like almost all conservatives, he's a liar. =)

[Daniel]

Like almost all conservatives, he's a liar. =)

...

lol

[Methais]

http://www.sneeko.net/images/macros/Thread-Gay-1950s.jpg

[Ravenstorm]

People giving serious responses to ClydeR never ceases to amaze me. His impersonation is so obvious and retarded, but somehow people completely overlook the hundred clues per sentence and try to respond with logic and reason.

The thing is though that ClydeR is merely parroting what's being said elsewhere. That is an actual editorial that is in print and was picked up by MSNBC (though I see they removed it because it made them look like morons). It is though here (http://www.woai.com/content/blogs/headlines/story/Comment-Openly-gay-troops-will-degrade-the-U-S/a_8hCK4LQUWlqLWiY3PjDw.cspx) and is an argument put forth by these idiots (http://www.cmrlink.org/) who have actually testified in favor of keeping DADT in Congressional hearings.

The good part is that Elaine Donnelly made a fool of herself and even the Republican congressmen considered her a laughingstock. Still, it's out there and they're trying to influence policy.

OMG!!!!11111oneone. I posted in a thread about teh ghey! The horror!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This thread is gold.

And Dave calling someone else retarded is a ROFLCOPTER in itself.