Skip to comments.Straight Talk From Top Enlisted Marine on ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal.
Posted on 06/22/2011 4:39:28 PM PDT by The Shrew
click here to read article
Yeah, the issue is that Obama has faggotized the damned armed forces. The Marine Corps, The Air Force, etc., no longer exist as they did. They now WELCOME degeneracy and perversion. I have no respect for anyone who has joined up from this year forward. And this cowardly, scumbag Marine can go straight to hell where he belongs.
FR does not support sex perverts in the military or any other digusting slimey facet of the homosexual agenda.
They aren’t “gay” which means “happy and carefree”. They are mentally ill people with sick sexual fetishes and their habits and acts cause disease. Homosexuals should seek help, much is available, they are not “born that way”, they can change and many have.
They certainly do not belong in the military any more than pedophiles (many pedophiles are homosexuals too), bestiality afficiandos, kleptomaniacs or anyone else with grave character and behavior flaws.
What the military needs more than ever is principled warriors. The fags in the military will not last. It will be over. Without a strong and principles military, our country is finished.
This perversion will not last too long. IMO. If it does, we’re finished as a Republic.
Two pages of this sicko’s posts go to 2004. Sure sign of a troll.
Q: Whats the difference between an ass kisser and a brown noser?
A: Depth perception
The Sargent Major has a major problem.
Gayness is a “Behavior” not a race ,creed, or color.
He is no better than Weasley Clark.
If you had read his initial comment....
He was brilliant. He said he would obey CIC orders, HOWEVER...the Marines would continue with their discipline, etc.
It was his way of saying, bring them on,m we will deal with them the way we always have...leaves the Marines to do “what they always have.”
John Kerry found this out the hard way - luckily for us.
So, does this mean the sgt major is a little light in the combat boots?
You're asking the wrong question. The nature of the homosexual psychosis is one of selfishness, self-aggrandizing, and a constant need for attention. It's part of why they do what they do. If they can't serve "openly," then they can't be allowed to bring their gay pride parades to us on-post. They can still serve and do great things for their country, but they can't flaunt and scream "look at me!" from the rooftops. With DADT repealed, none of this is the case anymore. They can now make spectacles of themselves, and there's nothing we can do about it in the military since homosexuals are probably the most protected class in all of American politics (Muslims and illegal immigrants being a close tie for second).
In general, I don't have a huge problem with homosexuals in the military, but mostly in the sense of allowing an individual to serve his/her country. It will get far away from that very quickly, mark my words. If it was solely about service, then DADT would've been a perfectly adequate policy.
Just wait until the perverts march in the ‘pervert’ pride parade with their dress blues on (well, parts of the uniform anyway) with ball gags and dog collars and such..
Did you see the video Massmike posted the other day with wiener and schumer et al at the nyc pervert parade? Disgusting!
My eldest daughter after 8 years is finished with the USMC and my son has a year left and he will not be signing up for another four years. He said most of his friends will quit after their 4 years are up as well.
It has to change, has to. Without a strong military, what will happen to the country? Ruination.
That’s the whole plan IMHO.. No better way than to destroy decency and integrity by demoralization..
Yes, it is called homosexual sex. The issue has never been about banning those poor mistreated 'gay' people that. The military has ALWAYS banned those who engage in homosexual sex as they are objectively disordered.
“but it wouldn’t be productive for our national defense, and that’s the real point.”
That’s the only consideration. Most soldiers would probably say that DADT was working pretty well. The openly gay thing had one purpose only, and that was to deconstruct and demoralize the military.
It’s a two-fer. A) Promote evil perversion and B) Destroy the military and thus the entire security of the USA.
And in the process, destroy our Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association.
Oh my, recruitment material for the sodomite community.
Very well put.
As I remember, the character “Henry Hill”, the narrator in the movie, actually used the term “bust out”. It’s the only time I’ve run across it prior to your post.
What was once a noun will become a verb.
Or, is there another point you are making?
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar...
Semper Loyalty Up & Down!
aka: Dick Gaines
Still gives me the creeps to think about. (Shudder)
“What could the senior Marine leadership - both enlisted and officer done to prevent this?”
Yours is a very good point. I don’t know what the circumstances are at the upper levels, but hopefully, the “self-correction” I spoke of, working at the platoon and squad level, will make for a military we can always be proud of.
Sounds like you know a bit about the bible. Why does the Bible specifically call out & condemn Male-Male sex but Woman on Woman sex is left out?
The vast majority of heterosexuals engage in sodomy as defined in Article 125 and the Manual for Courts-Martial since it includes a prohibition against oral sex.
You see, there is your problem. “They” do not see the bible as anything other than a cultist pamphlet.
In their mind, you are a robot believing stuff that was written two thousand years ago as “true.”
So, catch up with the 21st Century!
I believe the demoralization goes deeper than this one issue. America is demoralized every time it turns on the TV or the radio and experiences the filth that is popular "culture".
Women aren't excluded. Romans 1:26 - 28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
It is very specific about men being with men, but quite generic with women:
“vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature”
This could mean lots of different things, since it is a woman’s nature to give birth this could maybe even cover abortion. Or maybe it mean’s the woman engaging in anal sex? Why is there Woman lays with a woman as she would a man kind of verse? Or a verse like woman acting as if she was a man.
Before Clinton normalized oral sodomy it wasn’t so universally accepted as normal and natural. Many happily married couples do not practice oral sodomy.
It’s quite clear that the Bible is saying that men gratifying their sexual lust with other men, and women gratifying their sexual lust with other women, is sinful and unnatural. Pretty simple.
Not the way I read it. To me, the only thing that is clear is Men doing other men is prohibited. As far as women go they shouldn’t act “un-naturally” whatever that means?
Maybe the verses on women in the original Hebrew would make sense. Maybe something is being lost in the translation to english that comes out women acting against nature.
One curious thing about the Bible. Of all the worst kinds of people, the bible seems to most frequently condemn.... Not Gays but Tax Collectors!
Right with ya. My Gunny was a two tourer of Vietnam. Taught us well. Our three striper was a bit of a psycho, but again taught us well.
This goof is following orders or protecting his job.
Infecting the Marines with this kind of perversity will only handicap them. Name one of our potential adversaries that is doing this. You can’t. Because even Malaysia doesn’t play PC games with national defense.
Sounds as though you don’t want to read the simple truth that’s clear as day.
And the same prohibition against unnatural sex acts is there in every religion in the world.
It’s not some sectarian historical viewpoint against some kinds of sex acts. It’s Natural Law, and it’s universal and indeed, written in the heart of everyone. That’s why fags feel guilty, their conscience - God’s voice inside - telling them that what they are doing is wrong. That’s why they want to silence everyone, they’re trying to silence that quiet voice inside their hearts. It’s also why they have such a huge rate of drugs and alcoholism - trying to silence that voice.
It seems that you want to pretend that women having sex with women is okay or something. What utter nonsense.
Semper Fab. Somebody’s gonna have a good time with that.
Nope - I just wonder why the Bible doesn’t explicitly say woman on woman is bad like it does man on man...
The biblical view of woman’s sexuality is probably a lot different than in modern times. I wonder if maybe lesbian’s didn’t exist or maybe it was so well hidden that men (all the writers of the bible were men) never imagined that women would or could engage in sex. Maybe the biblical view of sex was like Bill Clinton’s (only penetration = sex) and women lack the equipment so...
Or like I said before maybe the original Hebrew words of the Bible don’t translate as well in regards to lesbians.
But you can’t deny the bible is very explicit about male homosexuality while quite vague in regards to lesbianism.
It’s only vague in your mind, not in the words, nor in anyone elses’ mind.
I suppose it could... if God had gave you up to a reprobate mind.
Good topic...deserving, I think, of a new Gunny G site...
GUNNY G: THEN THEY CAME FOR THE MARINES...(BETTER MEN HAVE TRIED...)
Semper Loyalty Up AND Down!
Just Plain Dick
>Id bet all the money I own that this guy was ordered to give this speech in just the way he gave it.<
That was my thought as well. I would like to have been a fly on the wall in the private conversation he had with the people he trusted in the room after the public talk.