soc.veterans

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:37:31 -0700 (PDT), Mark Sebree
wrote:

>On Mar 26, 10:26 pm, leroyb...@pillinor.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:45:45 -0700 (PDT), Mark Sebree
>>
>> wrote:
>> >On Mar 24, 10:07 pm, leroyb...@pillinor.net wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:08:47 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree
>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >It would not hurt our national security at all.  And allowing
>> >> >homosexuals to have equal rights should already have the force of law.
>>
>> >> Of course the same could be said of pedophiles, reformed alcoholics
>> >> and drug users.
>>
>> >No, it could not.  And by the way, there are a lot of reformed
>> >alcoholics serving in the Armed Forces.  The military medical plans
>> >have programs to help with alcoholism, and service men and women are
>> >encouraged to get that help before they cause trouble.
>>
>> >However, the military comes down VERY hard on people that are
>> >pedophiles and drug users.  And there is no parole in the federal
>> >system.
>>
>> >> And lets not forget the equal rights of convicted
>> >> felons who have served their sentence
>>
>> >Questionable.  The Constitution does not necessarily guarantee them
>> >equal rights since they lost their rights via the due process of law.
>>
>> >> or the mentally handicapped whom
>> >> the military should be responsible for finding a place in which they
>> >> can serve (special forces, maybe?)
>>
>> >Nope.  You OBVIOUSLY have no clue about what it takes to be in the
>> >special forces.  One thing it takes is intelligence that you do not
>> >seem to have.
>>
>> >>Sound like the Democrats kind of
>> >> military.
>>
>> >No, it sounds like the lies that republicans tell when they are faced
>> >with the facts that they cannot handle.
>>
>> >None of your red herrings address the fact that national security
>> >would not be harmed at all by giving homosexuals equal rights,
>> >including the right to serve openly in the US Armed Forces.
>>
>> Congress and the military have disagreed with your kind of brainless
>> argument for two hundred and thirty years. Does that give you a clue,
>> boy?
>
>Well, child, it gives me a clue about you, one that I already had.
>Congress and the military said that women could not command combat
>vessels for over 200 years, and they currently do command such ships.
>Congress and the military used to say that women could not serve as
>combat troops or in units that could see combat, and women serve in
>such capacities now. They said the same kinds of things about blacks
>in command of units and about mixed race units.

Apples and oranges. boy/

>
>Congress and the military been mistaken about many things and who was
>capable of serving in the military, and they have been consistently
>WRONG when it came to excluding a class of able-bodied individuals.
>Homosexuals have served and commanding in the various worlds
>militaries since there were militaries, sometimes openly, sometimes in
>secret, and they have not diminished the combat effectiveness of those
>armies and units because of their sexual orientation. That is because
>sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with a units combat
>effectiveness.

Of course it does but as a homosexual you would never admit it.

>
>Perhaps one day, you will pay attention to the lessons of history, as
>well as learn to think for yourself. And perhaps one day, you will
>grow enough to look beyond your bigotry and prejudice, but I doubt it.

Women and blacks are quite different from homosexual cock sucker and
rug muncher who ALWAYS find a way to fuck up unit cohesion.
Homosuxuals will never be allowed to serve openly in the US military.

>Mark Sebree
>
>>
>> >Mark Sebree