Guess we have an answer.
Unfortunate

Not unfortunate: despicable.

Quote:

As I noted...if these were anti semitic/Israel comments there would have been an end put to them already.

Arabs are also semitic.

But speaking of the jew state, their military is openly homosexual.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,....

Quote:

I suppose that if the meme was:

"As for open Jews in the military,
two words come to mind: Friendly Fire"
-that this would also be acceptable to You?

Interesting... you keep equating homos with jews.

my comment was from the perspective of serving both before and after being homosexual was legal in the Canadian Military.

I did serve in combat, I also served in UN peacekeeping and with NATO forces on a couple "expeditions", in fact served in the same place different times under different hats.

I did not witness any actual issues once it was allowed to be gay, in fact I had a soldier who served under my command who came out the day it was announced. Nothing changed. When it was illegal to be gay you would see some poor troop suspected of being gay get the living crap beat out of him, sometimes they weren't even gay. After it was legal that stopped.

I also was in the Canadian Forces when we allowed women to serve in all roles including combat, except submarines (since changed, now they serve there as well). That DID seriously **** up readiness and efficiency for about 3 years.

Quote:

Mesa:

Every Person that is willing to Serve in the United States Military, and Who is willing to lay down Their Life for this Country deserves Our Respect.

Period.

Somebody must Love what this Country is supposed to stand for an awful lot to go and put their Life on the line.

It's really embarrassing to be an American and listen to the kind of ignorant bull**** You are blathering.

Agree. It's wrong to allow the military to discriminate. They used to do it to blacks. They still do it to some extent to women.

What I do detest though is the "PC" push against the military. The "sensitivity" training and touchy feely crap. When reason and diplomacy fail, we need a group of strong people to extend our "diplomacy" and "break things and blow stuff up". I want the meanest mother#@%@#$@$ on the planet on my side doing that. If he/she is gay, and can accomplish that, I really don't care.

And that friendly fire comment is despicable.

It may be despicable. So, what's your point?

Are you doubting that friendly fire exists, that in some cases it's intentional, that it could be used both ways (no pun intended)?

Quote:

Wrong to discriminate

, are you ****ing kidding me? Different types of people are suited for different tasks (that's a fact). Me, I want to be in the foxhole with a 200# dude who can drag my ass to safety or buttstroke the enemy in the head rather than some 100# chick or some guy who's looking at my ass.

Keep your social experiments away from the real world where lives are at stake.

Quote:

And that friendly fire comment is despicable.

... but true


Also true is my comment that the promotion of homosexuality
is the beginning of the end of the military... and the nation.

Those who promote the perversion are useful idiots toward that end.

Gays and women in the military are probably extremely passionate about standing up against Islamic fundamentalists. They've got an axe to grind.

Personally, anyone willing to defend my rights is okay with me. I'm sure the military can find ways to deal. Being gay worked out okay in ancient Sparta.

Mesa, you have any individual thought or just get your views and thoughts from a tent revival?

Ever serve, ever get shot at, ever lost a friend in combat?

Obviously, you know nothing about me.

Cerich,

Please keep your personal attacks (tent revival) off my thread.

Uh...guys...Mesa's comment (the friendly fire comment) wasn't against the TOS of either TF or FedUp. We don't censor people here the way you're advocating.

It seems to me that you assumed Mesa was advocating intentional friendly fire incidents in order to deal with open gays in the military.

What I got from it was that he was stating that friendly fire incidents have and do happen, and that it is possible that more in the future may be related to open homosexuality in the military, if it is allowed.

Not only is Steph not disgusting or despicable, but she seems (yet again) to have supported not only the TOS here on TF and FedUP, but the US Constitution as well. (Yay Steph!)

Mesa was well within his rights to express the thought he did, and it is all of the opposition to his right to make that statement that is despicable.

I served in combat as well and I promise open homosexuals will have a negative impact on unit cohesion. Sorry if it doesn't fit into your world views but there it is. Combat units are all male and sexuality has no place.

If gays are allowed to openly serve, they should be housed separately from the heterosexuals as the women are from the men. There would still be a problem though, because you would still have people housed together that could become emotionally attracted to one another. I have no problem at all with homosexuals being homosexuals. I've worked with one in the past and we got along great at the office. My wife and I even had him over for dinner on more than one occasion. However, I WOULDN'T take a shower with him. Does that make me a "bigoted" "homophobe"??

This could seriously screw with the military. They should tread lightly.

When Clinton was elected, he wanted to allow openly homosexual people to serve. At that time I was almost old enough to join up, and I wouldn't even speak to a recruiter because of it. I'm sorry... I WILL NOT take a shower and sleep with homosexuals. I wouldn't want to take a shower with heterosexual women either....Unless I wanted to do 'other things' with them.

Thank God and mods, there's still some sanity in the world.

I've probably known more homosexuals in real life than everyone else on this board combined, having lived on the edge of the West Village for many years.

There's a reason you don't want homosexuals in the military, and it is far deeper than them hitting on straight soldiers and/or making them uncomfortable. Homosexuals have traditionally been excluded from the military because homosexuals have an incredibly high incidence of severe mental disorders, indeed homosexuality itself IMO is both a consequence and contributing factor to the perpetuation of those disorders.

You don't want people who are ****ed in the head in your ranks, and that's why homosexuals don't belong in the military.

Ican,

Go to the front of the class. The emperor has just been called out on his new clothes.

Quote:

Homosexuals have traditionally been excluded from the military because homosexuals have an incredibly high incidence of severe mental disorders, indeed homosexuality itself IMO is both a consequence and contributing factor to the perpetuation of those disorders.

Or maybe the mental disorders you are alleging, are in fact a consequence of being discriminated against...

Homosexuality used to be officially classified as a mental disorder.

And lobotomy used to be accepted as a medical treatment... What's your point?

Quote:

Homosexuality used to be officially classified as a mental disorder.

So was masturbation.

@RBar: If that were true then you'd see less of it in an environment dominated by homosexuals, but having been a first hand witness to just such an environment, I can tell you that is just the opposite. If anything, social shaming of the practice helps to keep the underlying problems that these people have from fully expressing themselves - for better or for worse.

What has usually happened with these people is an abusive or absent father and a domineering mother, or sexual abuse from a relative/other trusted person, ****ed up their mental sexual development causing them to seek satisfaction in self-degradation and abuse. This was once classified as a clear mental disorder, and it was properly classified so.

This problem also happens with heterosexuals but the rate at which it is true among homosexuals is astronomical.

My exposure to that community informs me without a doubt that homosexuality is a symptom of severe mental problems and that anyone who cares about them should be most concerned with resolving the underlying issues rather than attempting to justify their behavior. Attempting to normalize this behavior is akin to 'caring' for a severely obese person by giving them more food. There is nothing virtuous in being an enabler.

Homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in the 1970s.

TPTB pushed the homosexual agenda so fast and furious, that laws
were being passed protecting homos while many states still had
criminal laws against homosexuality.

Well be careful of the language you are using. A TRUE mental illness, as defined by the DSM4, will manifest before age 25 - once you have exceeded age 25 you are NOT going to suddenly become mentally ill - this also indicates that true mental illness is a brain structure/genetic problem and not environmentally caused (although environmental factors can and will contribute to the severity). Personality disorders can manifest at any time and have widely ranging levels of severity.

What it appears Ican is demonstrating is that those who are homosexual actually are more likely to have a true mental illness - this means that it is a true brain structure abnormality and NOT environmental.

Does this tell us something about homosexuality in general? Very likely. It would appear to lend validity to the argument that homosexuality is not commonly a 'life choice' but most likely these people are 'hard-wired' this way. So, while homosexuality is not, in and of itself, a mental illness, it CAN be indicitive of one.

If this is indeed the case, there is valid argument against gays in the military and it has little to do with sexuality and everything to do with mental stability. This is not discrimination, this is logic for battlefield survival and effectivenes of the military.

In this thread people raging at Mesa misdirect energy towards Jimpad.

Quote:

I see absolutely no one concentrating on the gay issue has even mentioned the RoE, which was the other part of Jimpad's post. That says volumes.

There's little disagreement that the ROE are complete horse****. Now Mesa's comments, there's something you can disagree with and feel good about at the same time.