Military's gay ban is unconstitutional

[Sonic]

HOOAH!

Stan, I’d like you to consider this issue from another perspective.

Do you agree that the health of our troops is very important to having an effective and successful fighting force?

Did you know that the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle shortens a person’s life by an average of an incredible 32 years. This conclusion, is based upon the examination of obituaries in the nation’s largest homosexual newspaper The Advocate.

Compare this 32-year shortening of life to other hazardous behavior; heavy drinkers lose an average of 11 years from their lives; heavy (two-pack-a-day) smokers lose 9 years; and illegal hard-drug users lose an average of 14 years.

Additionally, homosexuals are commonly crippled by a variety of venereal diseases and parasitic infestations, most of which can be easily transmitted by sexual activity.

According to the April 1987 British Journal of Sexual Medicine, while promiscuous homosexuals comprise only about two percent of the population, they account for one-half of all syphilis and gonorrhea cases, and nearly two-thirds of all AIDS cases. One in five homosexuals suffers from herpes, and they have ten times the rate of Hepatitis B infection that the general population does. They also suffer incredibly high rates of infection from cytomegalovirus, amoebic bowel disease, and a cluster of infections collectively referred to as “gay bowel syndrome.”

The average promiscuous homosexual suffers from two to four different venereal diseases simultaneously.

source:prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae115

I know that being in the military is a dangerous job, but homosexuality can further shorten a soldier’s life expectancy. It also puts a strain on the military health system.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

what are your thoughts on the issue?

I think I’ve made it fairly clear in this thread that I do NOT support revoking the ban on homosexual activity in the army. I DO support DADT.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

You don’t know that.

Yes I do! I’ve already seen it happen!

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Stan, I’d like you to consider this issue from another perspective.

Do you agree that the health of our troops is very important to having an effective and successful fighting force?

Did you know that the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle shortens a person’s life by an average of an incredible 32 years. This conclusion, is based upon the examination of obituaries in the nation’s largest homosexual newspaper The Advocate.

Compare this 32-year shortening of life to other hazardous behavior; heavy drinkers lose an average of 11 years from their lives; heavy (two-pack-a-day) smokers lose 9 years; and illegal hard-drug users lose an average of 14 years.

Additionally, homosexuals are commonly crippled by a variety of venereal diseases and parasitic infestations, most of which can be easily transmitted by sexual activity.

According to the April 1987 British Journal of Sexual Medicine, while promiscuous homosexuals comprise only about two percent of the population, they account for one-half of all syphilis and gonorrhea cases, and nearly two-thirds of all AIDS cases. One in five homosexuals suffers from herpes, and they have ten times the rate of Hepatitis B infection that the general population does. They also suffer incredibly high rates of infection from cytomegalovirus, amoebic bowel disease, and a cluster of infections collectively referred to as “gay bowel syndrome.”

The average promiscuous homosexual suffers from two to four different venereal diseases simultaneously.

source:prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae115

I know that being in the military is a dangerous job, but homosexuality can further shorten a soldier’s life expectancy. It also puts a strain on the military health system.

Please read the entire thread I stated I don’t agree with the lifestyle but they’re already serving.

As for sexual diseases I don’t know what the stats are today but overseas especially the Far East the majority of men going on sick call was for VD.

 

[Sonic]

Please read the entire thread I stated I don’t agree with the lifestyle but they’re already serving.

As for sexual diseases I don’t know what the stats are today but overseas especially the Far East the majority of men going on sick call was for VD.

I’m not implying that you condone or support the gay lifestyle. So, please don’t infer that I am.

And please read my previous statements… including the information at the Courage website. Once again, try to look at this issue from the perspective of someone struggling with homosexual inclinations.

Unfortunately, the current stats on VD in the far east does not disqualify my information. It only strengthens my information. It shows that the life expectancy of homosexuals in the military is further shortened due to military health issues.

 

[Chaplain777]

Chaplain not sure what you want me to elaborate on. My 2 years in Korea were 1/15th FA in Camp Casey, my deployment in Iraq was during OIF III as part of 3rd ID, 3/7 Infantry out of Fort Stewart.

In the previous post you answered; “That’s funny I’ve spent 13 years…” I wasn’t sure what you were saying there. I wasn’t being confrontational or anything, just wasn’t sure what you were answering.

 

[Carmel_B]

I blame the military for this ruling. instead of removing gays from important combat posts and preventing them from serving on active duty they deliberately delay discharge until they have served a complete tour or even just so they can go overseas first. only when they are in the USA are they discharged as they should be. this us exactly the opposite of what they do in all other cases where they detect threats to morale and military effectiveness and prevent them from serving a tour and remove them from their unit if detected while in combat operations. the devil encourages this by lowering rather than raising efficiency when gay officers are discharged and causing the unit to fail readiness tests rather than improve as it would without demonic intervention. whenever a gay is detected they should be discharged and the whole environment exorcised then morale and efficiency would improve rather than go down.

 

[Carmel_B]

the life expectancy of homosexuals in the military is further shortened due to military health issues.

we need to publicise the studies that say this do you have any references to figures for life expectancy of gay soldiers as opposed to normal ones in the US and other armies?

 

[Holly3278]

Well that seems to be a good question. The reason, because the posted link says that an injunction has been issued for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. This policy prohibited the military from asking questions about sexual orientation. So, does this mean that the military may now ask? If so, will they now find another reason (physical condition, or mental apptitude, etc.) to not accept the recruit based on the answer?

It also prohibited homosexuals from being open about their homosexuality in the military. Personally, I am all for the don’t ask don’t tell policy. I mean, being in the military is not about your sexuality, it’s about serving and protecting your country.

 

[Sonic]

we need to publicise the studies that say this do you have any references to figures for life expectancy of gay soldiers as opposed to normal ones in the US and other armies?

Not on hand, but I can look them up. If others would help me it would be easier.

What we need to do is get the statistics on VD and other diseases from the VA. It might be published on their website. We might also want to look up the average life expectancy for U.S. soldiers.

It only goes to follow that an already lowered life expectancy becomes lower whenever there is already a prerequisite for health problems and death. This is one reason I feel people with this struggle should voluntarily refrain from serving.

My concern is the protection of the lives and souls of those who are involved with this struggle. Increasing their chance of dying decreases the chance of the person sorting their lives out and leaving the gay lifestyle before their death.

 

[Chaplain777]

It also prohibited homosexuals from being open about their homosexuality in the military. Personally, I am all for the don’t ask don’t tell policy. I mean, being in the military is not about your sexuality, it’s about serving and protecting your country.

That’s true. I really don’t want the openly gay folks in the military, because then most issues become about that and not the mission of the military. I cannot condone the lifestyle, but if a person is gay and keeps it to themselves and does their job, I guess ok. In the Rangers we used to say, “If you ain’t cheatin’ you ain’t tryin’, and if you get caught you ain’t tryin’ hard enough.” Once you are in the military it is about the mission, and personal wants and needs take a back seat. So if you are gay and you want to be the military, keep your mouth shut and your lifestyle in check. Too many times it becomes about making statements, and that to me is a no-go.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

In the previous post you answered; “That’s funny I’ve spent 13 years…” I wasn’t sure what you were saying there. I wasn’t being confrontational or anything, just wasn’t sure what you were answering.

It was in regards to Via Dolorosa’s post claiming that everyone who’s in the military on the forum seemed to be ok with gays openly serving in the military, and dismissing everyone who argued against it as not being in the military.

I was being snarky.

 

[kenofken]

It also prohibited homosexuals from being open about their homosexuality in the military. Personally, I am all for the don’t ask don’t tell policy. I mean, being in the military is not about your sexuality, it’s about serving and protecting your country.

So if the military is now to be open to asexual beings only to better focus on the mission, I can assume that any public displays of affection among straight soldiers will lead to their being bounced from the service?

 

[kenofken]

That’s true. I really don’t want the openly gay folks in the military, because then most issues become about that and not the mission of the military. I cannot condone the lifestyle, but if a person is gay and keeps it to themselves and does their job, I guess ok. In the Rangers we used to say, “If you ain’t cheatin’ you ain’t tryin’, and if you get caught you ain’t tryin’ hard enough.” Once you are in the military it is about the mission, and personal wants and needs take a back seat. So if you are gay and you want to be the military, keep your mouth shut and your lifestyle in check. Too many times it becomes about making statements, and that to me is a no-go.

Does this go for Christians as well? There have been a number of incidents in recent years of people in the command structure aggressively proselytizing, usually evangelical sectarian Christians, in a way that has been disruptive of morale and mission. Presumably a law forcing them to keep their “lifestyle” in the closet would help keep the military on task.

 

[Holly3278]

So if the military is now to be open to asexual beings only to better focus on the mission, I can assume that any public displays of affection among straight soldiers will lead to their being bounced from the service?

Well, I would hope not. What I was trying to say was that I am all for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The reason being that there is really no sense in a homosexual trying to parade his sexuality around, especially not in the military. Most people could care less about the fact that one of their coworkers may or may not be gay. They’re not in the military to find another gay partner but to work to defend and serve our country.

 

[Ridgerunner]

• They’re not like us!
• They’re different!
• Serving side by side with them? It will never work!
• Living in the same barracks with them? No way!
• Shower with them? There will be trouble!

On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981 integrating the military and mandating equality of treatment and opportunity. It also made it illegal, per military law, to make a racist remark. Desegregation of the military was not complete for several years. The last all-black unit wasn’t disbanded until 1954.

A lot of the same arguments I hear today is being said about homosexuals serving openly in the military; yes I know it a totally different issue but the arguments are still the same.

Top military leadership did not like or want President Truman’s EO 9981 but once it happened they saluted and marched on.

All President Obama has to do is sign an Executive Order ending DADT. IMHO he should do it.

Racial policies are totally irrelevant to the DADT issue. In endorsing the idea that blacks are no different from whites and should be so treated, the government did what a government ought to do.

Having the government “affirm” that homosexuality it is no different from heterosexuality is a governmental endorsement of something that most of society considers a perversion and which the Catholic Church certainly does not affirm. If any of the anti-DADT people on here don’t think doing away with DADT will be understood as a governmental affirmation of homosexuality as nothing but an “alternative lifestyle of equal validity”, they really ought to think it out some more.
And don’t think for a moment that governmental endorsement of homosexuality in this instance will not give rise to it in others.

But those who oppose DADT really needn’t worry. Sooner or later Obama will do away with it. That’s absolutely a certainty, because militant homosexualism is part of the liberal base, and it makes no difference what the military thinks about it, in this as with anything else.

 

[kaid100]

It strikes me that if you want to build a strong army, discriminating on anything but the basis of the military potential of your recruits is crazy. Should we really turn away an intelligent, strong, disciplined candidate who is gay rather than a less qualified straight person?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It strikes me that if you want to build a strong army, discriminating on anything but the basis of the military potential of your recruits is crazy. Should we really turn away an intelligent, strong, disciplined candidate who is gay rather than a less qualified straight person?

Of course, turning away such candidates is not done now.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I’m not implying that you condone or support the gay lifestyle. So, please don’t infer that I am.

And please read my previous statements… including the information at the Courage website. Once again, try to look at this issue from the perspective of someone struggling with homosexual inclinations.

Unfortunately, the current stats on VD in the far east does not disqualify my information. It only strengthens my information. It shows that the life expectancy of homosexuals in the military is further shortened due to military health issues.

Well the homosexuals didn’t destroy the United Kingdom, Canadian, or Australian militaries they seem to be doing ok.

 

[kaid100]

Of course, turning away such candidates is not done now.

Which? The gay or the less qualified?