PDA

View Full Version : Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military



Janice
12-02-2011, 07:15 PM
http://i.imgur.com/onoFT.jpg

Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military

The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals. >>>

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the effort to remove sodomy from military law stems from liberal Senate Democrats' and President Obama’s support for removing the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

“It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda,” Perkins told CNSNews.com. “Not only did they overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy.” >>>

MORE (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate-approves-bill-legalizes-sodomy-and-bestiality-us-military)

Naturally Miss Lindsey Grahamnesty approved it. In fact most repubs voted yea!

Obama wants to have the bill ready for his signature by 12/31/11.

The NAYs - 12 include:

Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Rubio (R-FL)
Wyden (D-OR)

Only 12 conservatives in the whole lot now? Time to clean house folks!

JB
12-02-2011, 07:28 PM
This is just a back door to free ponies.

Bailey
12-02-2011, 07:30 PM
Well i guess nova has more of a reason to join now then ever before. :D

JB
12-02-2011, 07:35 PM
Seriously though, is this for real?

These numnutz couldn't repeal the sodomy part and at the same time write in the no animal sex part?

I don't expect our military folk to start banging goats all of a sudden, but wtf, a US Senator could not write this into the bill? We really have scraped the bottom of the barrel with these guys.

Rockntractor
12-02-2011, 07:44 PM
I don't expect our military folk to start banging goats all of a sudden

At least they aren't power hungry, or are they?:confused:

Janice
12-04-2011, 11:07 AM
So following in the footsteps of the Turkish military (and we know how that turned out), this will allow muslim goat herders into our military too? I suppose this is how the new socialist USSA dies with a whimper.

The stench from the rotting HEAD of this country and his party and his willing or unwitting supporters in the GOP is unfathomable. May God have mercy on the rest of us.

AmPat
12-04-2011, 12:07 PM
This is just a back door to free ponies.

Ewww, you said "back door.":eek:

I said it (repeal of DADT) was a slippery slope. Every lib here argued and quibbled about how it wasn't. I was right and we aren't even near the bottom of the slope yet.

noonwitch
12-06-2011, 03:31 PM
Seriously though, is this for real?

These numnutz couldn't repeal the sodomy part and at the same time write in the no animal sex part?

I don't expect our military folk to start banging goats all of a sudden, but wtf, a US Senator could not write this into the bill? We really have scraped the bottom of the barrel with these guys.


It leads me to wonder if anyone actually read the bill before voting on it.

I, too, am not concerned that military members are going to all run out and start banging goats, either.

AmPat
12-06-2011, 11:09 PM
It leads me to wonder if anyone actually read the bill before voting on it.

I, too, am not concerned that military members are going to all run out and start banging goats, either.
Are you concerned that the rate of hemorrhoids will make the now gay Soldiers combat ineffective?:confused::(:eek:

Janice
12-07-2011, 11:01 PM
Perhaps this is the Bwarney Frank memorial bill.

:popcorn:

Novaheart
12-07-2011, 11:06 PM
Seriously though, is this for real?

These numnutz couldn't repeal the sodomy part and at the same time write in the no animal sex part?

I don't expect our military folk to start banging goats all of a sudden, but wtf, a US Senator could not write this into the bill? We really have scraped the bottom of the barrel with these guys.

Is bestiality a problem with military personnel? It's already illegal in most states and countries, it's difficult to imagine why the military needs its own law on the matter, and surely bestiality would fall under some catch-all regulation.

Novaheart
12-07-2011, 11:08 PM
Perhaps this is the Bwarney Frank memorial bill.

:popcorn:

Do you always mock people with speech impediments? A stutterer must really make you feel good about yourself.

Odysseus
12-09-2011, 07:39 PM
Is bestiality a problem with military personnel? It's already illegal in most states and countries, it's difficult to imagine why the military needs its own law on the matter, and surely bestiality would fall under some catch-all regulation.

There are many things that are legal in other parts of the world that are not permitted by UCMJ. Certain recreational drugs are legal in the Netherlands, which is a NATO ally, but which US forces are barred from indulging in. Bestiality has not been a problem in the military, but neither has homosexuality, until now. Now doubt, another alternative lifestyle is gaining acceptance.

Novaheart
12-10-2011, 01:23 AM
. Bestiality has not been a problem in the military, but neither has homosexuality, until now. Now doubt, another alternative lifestyle is gaining acceptance.

http://topnews.net.nz/data/yawning.jpg

Janice
12-10-2011, 09:33 AM
I guess now it will be legal to have sex with liberals.

Odysseus
12-10-2011, 10:51 AM
http://topnews.net.nz/data/yawning.jpg

Sorry if we've exceeded your attention span. Unfortunately, those of us who aren't raving homophiles still have to deal with the policy fallout from your movement's collective hissy fit.

AmPat
12-10-2011, 11:28 AM
I guess now it will be legal to have sex with liberals.

Ouch! Can we hose them off first?:D

Rockntractor
12-10-2011, 12:22 PM
Ouch! Can we hose them off first?:D

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/used-pressure-washers.jpg

Novaheart
12-10-2011, 01:16 PM
Sorry if we've exceeded your attention span. Unfortunately, those of us who aren't raving homophiles still have to deal with the policy fallout from your movement's collective hissy fit.

Sounds like makework.

Odysseus
12-10-2011, 01:23 PM
Sounds like makework.

It's certainly work that we wouldn't have had to do if you hadn't decided that your agenda trumped national security. So far, Obama's approach to the military has been to fire our generals for trivia, ignore our accomplishments (or take credit for them himself), cut our budgets and manning, and impose new recruiting standards for persons who were previous seen as being unfit for military service. In other words, we have to do more with less, while accommodating agendas that have nothing to do with fighting and winning wars.

Novaheart
12-10-2011, 01:42 PM
It's certainly work that we wouldn't have had to do if you hadn't decided that your agenda trumped national security. So far, Obama's approach to the military has been to fire our generals for trivia, ignore our accomplishments (or take credit for them himself), cut our budgets and manning, and impose new recruiting standards for persons who were previous seen as being unfit for military service. In other words, we have to do more with less, while accommodating agendas that have nothing to do with fighting and winning wars.

Sounds awful. IN ten years, you'll be on a lounge chair or barstool somewhere and not even thinking about it.

AmPat
12-11-2011, 10:08 AM
Sounds awful. IN ten years, you'll be on a lounge chair or barstool somewhere and not even thinking about it.

Let me get this straight.
ODY, who is active duty and has to deal with the repercussions of social engineering on a daily basis, shouldn't be concerned because he will be "on a lounge chair or bar stool in ten years," yet you and your sexually deviant, social engineering confederates are concerned today that our heretofore, best military on the planet, must integrate previously unfit for duty recruits immediately.

Yeah sure, makes perfect sense to about 1% of the population.:rolleyes:

Novaheart
12-11-2011, 12:37 PM
Let me get this straight.
ODY, who is active duty and has to deal with the repercussions of social engineering on a daily basis, shouldn't be concerned because he will be "on a lounge chair or bar stool in ten years," yet you and your sexually deviant, social engineering confederates are concerned today that our heretofore, best military on the planet, must integrate previously unfit for duty recruits immediately.

Yeah sure, makes perfect sense to about 1% of the population.:rolleyes:

Truman integrated the military sixtysome years ago and you're still whining about it?

Odysseus
12-11-2011, 05:50 PM
Sounds awful. IN ten years, you'll be on a lounge chair or barstool somewhere and not even thinking about it.

Ten years from now, I expect to be finishing up the last of my service, but I'll have spent the interim implementing a policy that will not enhance readiness, improve manning or do anything except provide a warm fuzzy feeling to people who have never sat on anything but lounge chairs and bar stools, i.e., you and your activist pals.


Truman integrated the military sixtysome years ago and you're still whining about it?

Race isn't sexual conduct, and you are not oppressed by any stretch of the imagination.

txradioguy
12-12-2011, 03:11 AM
Ten years from now, I expect to be finishing up the last of my service, but I'll have spent the interim implementing a policy that will not enhance readiness, improve manning or do anything except provide a warm fuzzy feeling to people who have never sat on anything but lounge chairs and bar stools, i.e., you and your activist pals.



Race isn't sexual conduct, and you are not oppressed by any stretch of the imagination.

QFT.

Some people will just NEVER get it.

Lanie
12-17-2011, 08:50 PM
It's it's like my home state, somebody decided to put the two rules together. You can repeal the rules on sodomy (which btw, includes heterosexuals) and still have it be illegal to have sex with animals. Can people get some sense?

on edit: This is a righty source. There's probably more to the story.

http://cnsnews.com/about-us

But seriously, this is like my state's "crimes against nature" law years ago. People wanted it shot down because it made sodomy illegal, but the argument was that it also made sex with animals illegal. Either the people who make these laws were extreme bigots or they're purposely trying to throw people up against the wall with a "Gotcha!" thing. They should be ashamed. The two laws should not be together. Period.

Lanie
12-17-2011, 08:58 PM
Is bestiality a problem with military personnel? It's already illegal in most states and countries, it's difficult to imagine why the military needs its own law on the matter, and surely bestiality would fall under some catch-all regulation.

Thank you.

Oh, and people who are sick enough to do it with animals are going to do it. We already have laws on the books against animal cruelty. I say we enforce them in the RARE event that we catch something this disgusting.

Lanie
12-17-2011, 09:01 PM
There are many things that are legal in other parts of the world that are not permitted by UCMJ. Certain recreational drugs are legal in the Netherlands, which is a NATO ally, but which US forces are barred from indulging in. Bestiality has not been a problem in the military, but neither has homosexuality, until now. Now doubt, another alternative lifestyle is gaining acceptance.

If you actually believe that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of having sex with animals, then as Ellen said years ago "And you think we're weird."

Gain some common sense here. Just because some people fall in love with those of the same gender doesn't mean they'd have a desire to have sex with animals. You're really hurting your cause by even comparing the two.

Lanie
12-17-2011, 09:06 PM
Okay, one more and then rant off. Israel has gays in their military. They have to. They don't have much of a choice with people all around trying to kill them. Anyway, it's not a big deal for them and guess what? No problemos with people have sex with animals.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/02/in-israeli-army-gays-are-no-big-deal/


Once Kaplan was accepted into the Israeli navy, he faced a further interview to determine his security clearance level. "The interviewer started asking me a lot of questions about whether I had come out to my family and friends," he said. "He basically wanted to know if my being gay was something that could be used to blackmail me. But it really wasn't such a big deal."


The right to be openly gay has been acknowledged in the Israeli military since 1993, and there is little evidence that policy has caused any problems. Even beyond the army, Israeli law is generally progressive on issues of sexual orientation. Even though marriage is controlled by the ultra-Orthodox rabbinic establishment, Israeli authorities recognize same-sex marriages performed abroad, and same-sex partners receive the same economic benefits as married couples.

So honestly, what's the problem? Israel, a US ally for years, a country which often has the support of people on here has gays in their military with little to no problem. Why is it a problem for us?

AmPat
12-18-2011, 10:59 AM
Okay, one more and then rant off. Israel has gays in their military. They have to. They don't have much of a choice with people all around trying to kill them. Anyway, it's not a big deal for them and guess what? No problemos with people have sex with animals.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/02/in-israeli-army-gays-are-no-big-deal/
So honestly, what's the problem? Israel, a US ally for years, a country which often has the support of people on here has gays in their military with little to no problem. Why is it a problem for us?

I don't see militant gays prancing around Israeli streets wearing fabulous clothing, making spectacles of themselves and having gay pride parades every year. Our "special" gay males? feel compelled to wear panties in public while the women?believe that putting on men's jeans and sporting a crew cut makes them masculine. They act, dress, and speak in an absurd manner that has no resemblance to the opposite sex, yet insist that we accept them and their sexually centered lifestyle as normal.

I guess the "problem" then is our culture can't raise people to respect others rights to peace and harmony. Our brand of gays feel it is their "right" to force their sexual perversion on American culture, teach it in the schools as normal, and wave it in our face on a daily basis.

Also, we have the best military in the history of the world. Typical of DIMoRATS and liberals in general, we can't leave well enough alone.

I say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Liberals say, it works too well, let's change something.

Now, before anybody starts with the usual stupid accusations and attacks, a disclaimer:
I don't care what your favorite phallus or choice orifice is, as long as you keep it in the bedroom and off of main street. I don't seek out gays to ridicule, mock, or harass. The only problem a gay will have with me is if he or she forces me to endure their antics in public or force it legislatively or on our children in the schools. Keep it civil and private and nobody will get hurt.

Odysseus
12-18-2011, 11:49 AM
If you actually believe that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of having sex with animals, then as Ellen said years ago "And you think we're weird."

Gain some common sense here. Just because some people fall in love with those of the same gender doesn't mean they'd have a desire to have sex with animals. You're really hurting your cause by even comparing the two.
The issue is not whether gays want to have sex with animals. The issue is whether eroding standards of sexual conduct in one area will erode them in others. The normalization of homosexuality removes the legal and historical precedents to ban other forms of sexual behavior, until eventually, anything goes.

Okay, one more and then rant off. Israel has gays in their military. They have to. They don't have much of a choice with people all around trying to kill them. Anyway, it's not a big deal for them and guess what? No problemos with people have sex with animals.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/02/in-israeli-army-gays-are-no-big-deal/

So honestly, what's the problem? Israel, a US ally for years, a country which often has the support of people on here has gays in their military with little to no problem. Why is it a problem for us?

Israel's navy is a small coastal defense force. They don't deploy for years at a time, with intermittent stops at their home ports. Israel's army doesn't go off for yearlong deployments in cramped and spartan quarters on the other side of the world.

Novaheart
12-18-2011, 01:24 PM
I don't see militant gays prancing around Israeli streets wearing fabulous clothing, making spectacles of themselves and having gay pride parades every year. Our "special" gay males? feel compelled to wear panties in public while the women?believe that putting on men's jeans and sporting a crew cut makes them masculine.

Israel has Gay Pride events.

Judging the gay community by SELECT person in and at the Pride parade is rather like judging the straight community by what one sees at Mardi Gras or Burning Man, don't you think?


They act, dress, and speak in an absurd manner that has no resemblance to the opposite sex, yet insist that we accept them and their sexually centered lifestyle as normal.

I find "dudespeak" , exaggerated "masculine" expression, thug wannabe-ism, and wiggertude (all of which are easily observed in military and other young men) to be every bit as affected as gay guys camping it up.

txradioguy
12-18-2011, 01:25 PM
If you actually believe that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of having sex with animals, then as Ellen said years ago "And you think we're weird."


And the same people said that the repeal of the anti-Sodomy law in Texas wouldn't lead to states legalizing gay marriage.

Look where we are now.

Guess what court case was used to justify legalizing gay marriage?

Lawrence v. Texas

Novaheart
12-18-2011, 01:47 PM
And the same people said that the repeal of the anti-Sodomy law in Texas wouldn't lead to states legalizing gay marriage.

Look where we are now.

Guess what court case was used to justify legalizing gay marriage?

Lawrence v. Texas


Legalizing gay marriage was/is a constitutional inevitability. The foundation has nothing to do with Lawrence, it has to do with a body of constitutional law holding that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, or expression. Laws limiting marriage to same sex couples obviously discriminate on sex in that they do not permit two women to enter into a marriage when they would permit a man and a woman to enter into marriage. The laws are framed in and defended on religious grounds, indeed judges have had to instruct lawyers to refrain from making irrelevant religious references (Hawaii etc...) in making their case for discrimination. The only arguments left are biology and tradition. We don't refuse marriage licenses to sterile heterosexual couples and tradition of discrimination is not a valid reason to continue discrimination.

Rockntractor
12-18-2011, 02:01 PM
Legalizing gay marriage was/is a constitutional inevitability. The foundation has nothing to do with Lawrence, it has to do with a body of constitutional law holding that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, or expression. Laws limiting marriage to same sex couples obviously discriminate on sex in that they do not permit two women to enter into a marriage when they would permit a man and a woman to enter into marriage. The laws are framed in and defended on religious grounds, indeed judges have had to instruct lawyers to refrain from making irrelevant religious references (Hawaii etc...) in making their case for discrimination. The only arguments left are biology and tradition. We don't refuse marriage licenses to sterile heterosexual couples and tradition of discrimination is not a valid reason to continue discrimination.

So, have you ever fucked a chicken?:confused:

Novaheart
12-18-2011, 02:14 PM
So, have you ever fucked a chicken?:confused:

Only West Virginians fuck chickens.

Rockntractor
12-18-2011, 02:18 PM
Only West Virginians fuck chickens.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/chickenredux-03.jpg

txradioguy
12-18-2011, 04:32 PM
Legalizing gay marriage was/is a constitutional inevitability. The foundation has nothing to do with Lawrence, it has to do with a body of constitutional law holding that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, or expression. Laws limiting marriage to same sex couples obviously discriminate on sex in that they do not permit two women to enter into a marriage when they would permit a man and a woman to enter into marriage. The laws are framed in and defended on religious grounds, indeed judges have had to instruct lawyers to refrain from making irrelevant religious references (Hawaii etc...) in making their case for discrimination. The only arguments left are biology and tradition. We don't refuse marriage licenses to sterile heterosexual couples and tradition of discrimination is not a valid reason to continue discrimination.


That makes a nice fairy tale there.

But in reality...it's about money...plain and simple. You and the rest of the LGBT lobby could care less about tradition etc etc...you just want the benefits.

End of story.

And no...it wasn't a Constitutional inevitability. Gay marriage and gay "rights" is just another one of those trumped up things that is supposedly in the Constitution right there next to abortion "rights".

Activist judges have give you what the majority of the populations of this country and the Constitution didn't.

Lanie
12-18-2011, 10:35 PM
And the same people said that the repeal of the anti-Sodomy law in Texas wouldn't lead to states legalizing gay marriage.

Look where we are now.

Guess what court case was used to justify legalizing gay marriage?

Lawrence v. Texas

Can you name one region, country, etc that allows having sex with animals?

I bet even the ever so liberal Netherlands don't allow it.

What I don't understand is why you and others think this is a big problem? Seriously, who wants to have sex with animals? Really?

I shouldn't be answering you. Grrrrrrrr.

Rockntractor
12-18-2011, 10:36 PM
Can you name one region, country, etc that allows having sex with animals?

I bet even the ever so liberal Netherlands don't allow it.

What I don't understand is why you and others think this is a big problem? Seriously, who wants to have sex with animals? Really?

I shouldn't be answering you. Grrrrrrrr.

Have you ever been screwed by a chicken?:confused:

Lanie
12-18-2011, 10:46 PM
I don't see militant gays prancing around Israeli streets wearing fabulous clothing, making spectacles of themselves and having gay pride parades every year. Our "special" gay males? feel compelled to wear panties in public while the women?believe that putting on men's jeans and sporting a crew cut makes them masculine. They act, dress, and speak in an absurd manner that has no resemblance to the opposite sex, yet insist that we accept them and their sexually centered lifestyle as normal.

I guess the "problem" then is our culture can't raise people to respect others rights to peace and harmony. Our brand of gays feel it is their "right" to force their sexual perversion on American culture, teach it in the schools as normal, and wave it in our face on a daily basis.

Also, we have the best military in the history of the world. Typical of DIMoRATS and liberals in general, we can't leave well enough alone.

I say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Liberals say, it works too well, let's change something.

Now, before anybody starts with the usual stupid accusations and attacks, a disclaimer:
I don't care what your favorite phallus or choice orifice is, as long as you keep it in the bedroom and off of main street. I don't seek out gays to ridicule, mock, or harass. The only problem a gay will have with me is if he or she forces me to endure their antics in public or force it legislatively or on our children in the schools. Keep it civil and private and nobody will get hurt.

I don't care much for PRIDE parades, but I don't think it's fair to label all gays because of the way some people behave. Surely you've worked with people who seemed so normal and then you found out one day that they were gay. And surely you've been around heterosexuals who act like they have no sense. When it comes to bars for example, gay or straight, they act like they have no sense. I once worked at a convenience store where a lot of my male customers (mostly of which were straight) would go into the bathroom and urinate in the floor. Do you think it's okay for me to judge the majority of straight American men by what I saw and often had to clean up in my store? I seriously walked out at times thinking to myself that men were the most disgusting, most vile creatures on the planet. Seriously, why can't all those "normal" men hit the toilet or the urinal? I don't understand. What if I were to come up with a new law saying that men are not allowed to use public restrooms? I think it makes sense. If gays can not have rights because some of them dress up as the opposite gender, then men should not have rights because some of them are getting drunk as a skunk and urinating in the public restroom floor. I suddenly have the "Two and a half Men" song going through my head.

I am not sure if I agree that we have the best military in the world. We certainly have the most resources, but when I observed Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, I found that they appeared to be better at limiting civilian casualties. I'm not trying to bash any military with that.

And I notice something. Nobody has addressed the issue that sodomy does not just apply to homosexuals. Heterosexuals do it too.

Lanie
12-18-2011, 10:47 PM
Have you ever been screwed by a chicken?:confused:

I have on rare occasion felt screwed over by a poster or two on here. Does that count?

BTW, do you beat your wife?

Rockntractor
12-18-2011, 10:53 PM
I have on rare occasion felt screwed over by a poster or two on here. Does that count?

BTW, do you beat your wife?

That woman beats me!:confused::eek:

Novaheart
12-18-2011, 11:57 PM
.......
must integrate previously unfit for duty recruits immediately.

.......:

There is nothing immediate about it. Ending discrimination in the military was brought to the table over thirty years ago, and became inevitable in the 1990's. It's no surprise to anyone in a position of authority that it has come to pass.

Odysseus
12-19-2011, 01:46 AM
There is nothing immediate about it. Ending discrimination in the military was brought to the table over thirty years ago, and became inevitable in the 1990's. It's no surprise to anyone in a position of authority that it has come to pass.

Oh, please. Just because you've been agitating for it doesn't mean that it was inevitable. In fact, it wouldn't have happened at all if the Democrats hadn't lost the house. Obama rammed it through congress during a lame duck session because he knew that if he did it before the elections, the 2010 results would be even more catastrophic for the Democrats than they were, and if he waited for the next congress to be seated, it would have been dead in the water. The real surprise was how much damage the Democrats are willing to do to the military in order to pander to you.

AmPat
12-19-2011, 08:52 PM
There is nothing immediate about it. Ending discrimination in the military was brought to the table over thirty years ago, and became inevitable in the 1990's. It's no surprise to anyone in a position of authority that it has come to pass.One more time for the "special" among us: I said "unfit for duty." That is not the moral equivalent of racial discrimination.

AmPat
12-19-2011, 08:55 PM
I don't care much for PRIDE parades, but I don't think it's fair to label all gays because of the way some people behave. Surely you've worked with people who seemed so normal and then you found out one day that they were gay. And surely you've been around heterosexuals who act like they have no sense. When it comes to bars for example, gay or straight, they act like they have no sense. I once worked at a convenience store where a lot of my male customers (mostly of which were straight) would go into the bathroom and urinate in the floor. Do you think it's okay for me to judge the majority of straight American men by what I saw and often had to clean up in my store? I seriously walked out at times thinking to myself that men were the most disgusting, most vile creatures on the planet. Seriously, why can't all those "normal" men hit the toilet or the urinal? I don't understand. What if I were to come up with a new law saying that men are not allowed to use public restrooms? I think it makes sense. If gays can not have rights because some of them dress up as the opposite gender, then men should not have rights because some of them are getting drunk as a skunk and urinating in the public restroom floor. I suddenly have the "Two and a half Men" song going through my head.

I am not sure if I agree that we have the best military in the world. We certainly have the most resources, but when I observed Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, I found that they appeared to be better at limiting civilian casualties. I'm not trying to bash any military with that.

And I notice something. Nobody has addressed the issue that sodomy does not just apply to homosexuals. Heterosexuals do it too.
Obviously, I was referring to those that acted like I described. Obviously, there are exceptions.

JB
12-19-2011, 08:59 PM
BTW, do you beat your wife?Libs can never get anything right. The answer to that question is "no".

What you really wanted to ask is...Do you STILL beat your wife?

Then your attempt at a gotcha moment would have worked.

Rockntractor
12-19-2011, 09:09 PM
Libs can never get anything right. The answer to that question is "no".

What you really wanted to ask is...Do you STILL beat your wife?

Then your attempt at a gotcha moment would have worked.

I can picture her reading this with her head cocked to the side and a puzzled look on her face.

Lanie
12-19-2011, 11:09 PM
Oh, please. Just because you've been agitating for it doesn't mean that it was inevitable. In fact, it wouldn't have happened at all if the Democrats hadn't lost the house. Obama rammed it through congress during a lame duck session because he knew that if he did it before the elections, the 2010 results would be even more catastrophic for the Democrats than they were, and if he waited for the next congress to be seated, it would have been dead in the water. The real surprise was how much damage the Democrats are willing to do to the military in order to pander to you.

The military is going to go on just fine. They're going to be as great as ever. They'll still kick butt better than anybody else. Our military will still be the ones that other countries want on their side. Grow up already!











runs like heck.

Lanie
12-19-2011, 11:12 PM
I can picture her reading this with her head cocked to the side and a puzzled look on her face.

Has head cocked to the side.

Looking puzzled.

Pigmas?


lol.

I was saying that asking me if I had been screwed by a chicken is a "Do you beat your wife" question. Excuse me. Still beat your wife.

Odysseus
12-20-2011, 02:05 AM
The military is going to go on just fine. They're going to be as great as ever. They'll still kick butt better than anybody else. Our military will still be the ones that other countries want on their side. Grow up already!











runs like heck.

To you, our military is "they". I don't have that luxury. We will be taking up more time and effort to integrate persons whose sexual conduct is disruptive to unit cohesion and morale. Meanwhile, thanks to our politicians' inability to address mounting debt and economic stagnation brought about by their desire to impose control on the economy, we are looking at draconian defense cuts, which means that we will be reducing force structure. To put it another way, we are going to be removing people who have performed their duties and were otherwise qualified for retention, while keeping persons who were previous seen as unfit, because of the agenda of a small but financially powerful pressure group and that is, at best, indifferent to our military.

That's not what I call "fine."

AmPat
12-20-2011, 09:43 AM
I'm trying to envision future coming home parades for the troops; do they sashay in formation? Is there pastel confetti? Are speeches made with a lisp? Can they hold hands while at ease? Will the marching bands wear skirts?

Oh dear, the future looks fabulous.;)

Lanie
12-20-2011, 11:44 PM
To you, our military is "they". I don't have that luxury. We will be taking up more time and effort to integrate persons whose sexual conduct is disruptive to unit cohesion and morale. Meanwhile, thanks to our politicians' inability to address mounting debt and economic stagnation brought about by their desire to impose control on the economy, we are looking at draconian defense cuts, which means that we will be reducing force structure. To put it another way, we are going to be removing people who have performed their duties and were otherwise qualified for retention, while keeping persons who were previous seen as unfit, because of the agenda of a small but financially powerful pressure group and that is, at best, indifferent to our military.

That's not what I call "fine."

Okay, I would think that cuts in defense would encourage the military to keep the best qualified. I think that qualified would be about the skills they have and their physical abilities, not about who they fall in love with.

txradioguy
12-21-2011, 04:27 AM
Okay, I would think that cuts in defense would encourage the military to keep the best qualified. I think that qualified would be about the skills they have and their physical abilities, not about who they fall in love with.

This is one of the many ties you should just keep your mouth shut and learn from people that actually know what they are talking about where the military is concerned.

Seriously.

Your heroes on the left are the ones forcing us to accept who falls in love with who as "normal". The left is the ones that continually use us as a social experiment.

They are the ones that ensure we can't keep the best qualified with piss poor pay raises...this year will be one of the lowest since 1962...putting soldiers on trial for doing their jobs...and NO I'm not talking about 5/2 and their sick kill squads...and by forcing us to add the repeal of don't ask don't tell to the pile of egg shells we already have to walk across in the name of EO.

AmPat
12-21-2011, 10:23 AM
This is one of the many ties you should just keep your mouth shut and learn from people that actually know what they are talking about where the military is concerned.

Seriously.

Your heroes on the left are the ones forcing us to accept who falls in love with who as "normal". The left is the ones that continually use us as a social experiment.

They are the ones that ensure we can't keep the best qualified with piss poor pay raises...this year will be one of the lowest since 1962...putting soldiers on trial for doing their jobs...and NO I'm not talking about 5/2 and their sick kill squads...and by forcing us to add the repeal of don't ask don't tell to the pile of egg shells we already have to walk across in the name of EO.

Come on sweet cheeks, just embrace it and you'll find that you actually liked it all along. :rolleyes:

Ohh, is that Dolly the Sheep? Yeowza! *Wolf whistle*

Tipsycatlover
12-21-2011, 02:52 PM
The military is being led by a population slowly sliding into total degeneracy.

Odysseus
12-21-2011, 04:31 PM
Okay, I would think that cuts in defense would encourage the military to keep the best qualified. I think that qualified would be about the skills they have and their physical abilities, not about who they fall in love with.

Who they are attracted to impacts how they fit into an organization.

Let me try this on you, since none of the other activists will give an honest answer: We currently have latrines, showers and sleeping facilities that are segregated by gender. Men are not permitted into women's areas and vice versa. If you assume that gay males can share showers, billets and other intimate areas with other men without any stresses, and that lesbians can do the same with women, then why not just eliminate all separate facilities? Do you believe that straight men can share intimate quarters with women without incident? If not, why do you think that gay men are going to show more restraint than straight ones?

DumbAss Tanker
12-21-2011, 05:29 PM
An organization can only have one true top priority (Despite the insane, illogical bullshit put out in decades of DOD and other government policy documents): Is it going to be maximum combat effectiveness, or something else, like social engineering or feel-good bullshit for certain Congressional constituencies and voting blocs?

Choose wisely. There are consequences.