Replies

Homosexuals - AIDS

Probably the most compelling argument against that I've heard. One I won't discount as mere hysteria and emotionalism. At least... compelling considering enlistment of gay men in particular. It's not a threat that relates to women.

So... I'll grant you that. It's not easy to dismiss that very real practicality.

Discussing an issue and asking for reason, not hysterics, is not "pushing an agenda" it's what will be required in this era. That's the way it is outside this little echo chamber. Doesn't matter to me if you get it.

So you’re calling opposition to the homosexual agenda “hysteria”.

Very revealing.

Is this the sort of S**T you want to come to characterize our Military! You take a good damn look at yourself and what you're saying when you demand that we destroy one of the few institutions in this country that hasn't been completely destroyed by your insistence that it just drops its standards and allow deviants and perverts into it's ranks:

Exploiting Rank and Using Alcohol and Homosexual Pornography to Manipulate Victim

In some of the reported cases, servicemembers have taken advantage of their relationship with those of lower rank, and also plied their victims with alcohol to make them vulnerable. Such was the case against Marine Sgt. Sean D. Habian:

Lance Corporal (LCpl) L, a 21-year-old radio repairman with less than 2 years experience in the Marine Corps, was sent by his unit to augment Military Police Company as a day-shift clerk at the base pass office. The appellant, a 36-year-old sergeant with over 8 years' experience in the Marine Corps, also worked in the pass office, on the night shift. . . . [T]he appellant . . . asked LCpl L if he would be interested in coming over to the appellant's house to "hang out." LCpl L agreed . . . . LCpl L arrived at the appellant's on-base quarters, and the appellant encouraged him, over LCpl L's initial protest, to drink alcoholic beverages. . . . LCpl L testified that he became extremely intoxicated, and could not recall anything that happened after he sat down on the downstairs sofa around 0300.

When LCpl L awoke, he was in the appellant's upstairs bedroom, and could feel a hand rubbing his a--s and digitally penetrating it. He felt a second hand reaching for his genital area. He still felt intoxicated, but attempted to push his elbow back to stop the person touching him. The touching was repeated, with a hand rubbing his a--s and a finger penetrating it "every once in awhile." He heard the person saying "one more time. One more time." After LCpl L again pushed back with his elbows, the appellant got off the bed, slapped LCpl L on the buttocks and yelled at him to get out of bed and leave the house. LCpl L was groggy, and the appellant slapped him two more times, a few minutes apart, before LCpl finally got up off the bed. Realizing he was naked, LCpl L had a heated conversation with the appellant, asking the latter what had taken place and the location of his clothes. . . .

While discussing the incident [later] with [Special Agent] Ryan, LCpl L vaguely recalled an additional incident in which he woke up during the night and saw gay pornography on the television. He remembered waking up yet again due to a lack of air, with the appellant's groin area in his face and neck area. He could also feel the appellant s---ing on his p---s. LCpl L did not remember having any clothing on at this time, although he had been fully clothed when he sat down on the couch at approximately 0300. As LCpl L attempted to move his head to catch his breath, he opened his eyes and saw the television screen, on which he saw a man performing oral sex on another man. . . . The day before he invited LCpl L to his house, the appellant went to an adult store and purchased a transsexual inflatable doll kit. The doll had both an a--l and oral orifice, but no v-----l orifice. The appellant also purchased a videotape, entitled "Transsexual Streetwalkers," depicting homosexual sexual activity. After the incident, agents from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service found the doll, inflated, in the appellant's closet. . . . A homosexual video was found in the appellant's VCR, attached to his television set.

. . . He was . . . convicted of fraternization with LCpl L, and with an indecent acts offense for rubbing LCpl L's a--s, fondling LCpl L's p---s and t-------s, and penetrating LCpl L's a--s with his fingers. . . . [T]he appellant argues that the appellant's acts in rubbing LCpl L's private parts and digitally penetrating his a--s were simply "homosexual foreplay" and cannot be found indecent . . . . We disagree. . . . [T]he indecent acts of which the appellant was convicted involved actions . . . as LCpl L was just awakening and trying to shake off an intoxicated stupor. . . . LCpl L's vulnerable condition and the lack of any express consent render the indecent acts of which the appellant was convicted coercive in nature.32

Is this what you want? Evil prevails when good men do nothing! The military has been a great institution and we hold our soldiers....especially our officers...to a high standard. To hell with both of you if you condone that!