By UPDATE #2: Blackfive has some good discussion on this very issue. I like this quote from Jimbo:
"If I am lying by the road bleeding, I don’t care if the medic coming to save me is gay. I just hope he is one of those buff gay guys who are always in the gym so he can throw me over his shoulder and get me out of there."
_____________________________________________________
UPDATE #1: The Stars & Stripes has an article with statistics supporting my opinion that many US military personnel don’t care about gays serving, but don’t want the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy changed:
Twenty-three percent of the 545 servicemembers surveyed online over three days in October said they knew “for certain†they were serving with someone who is gay, according to a Zogby International poll. The poll was commissioned by and designed in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center, a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that was formerly the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military.
(…)
However, when the respondents were asked whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, 37 percent disagreed with the idea, 26 percent agreed with the idea, and 32 percent said they felt neutral about changing the current “don’t ask, don’t tell†policy.
Of course gay advocates are manipulating the results to fit their own views:
Belkin said he believed the finding that one in four servicemembers knows of a gay colleague shows the current policy isn’t working.
“No one is supposed to know a gay peer,†Belkin said during a phone interview Thursday. “To see that was a surprise.â€
This professor by his own words appears shocked that the military is not conducting the witch hunt against gay soldiers that many of these gay advocates believe the military is doing. This guy actually wishes that US military personnel would hunt down and kick out gay soldiers they know of just to support his own political beliefs instead of recognizing the fact that the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy is working by allowing all of these gay soldiers to serve in the first place without the fear of a witch hunt.
_______________________________________________________
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili has an op-ed published in the New York Times advocating for the removal of the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy regarding homosexuals:
In an op-ed published in Tuesday’s New York Times, John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Congress should give "serious reconsideration" to "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," the ban on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. Shalikashvili, who supported the ban on open service in 1993, writes that "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," and goes on to say that "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
"’Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is out of step with both the American public and those within our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "The counsel of military leaders increasingly supports repeal of the law. Congress must, as General Shalikashvili urges, consider the overwhelming evidence of the past fourteen years. If they do, the clear answer is that we must lift the ban."
A fallacy is the claim that gays are banned from the military. This is totally untrue. I have known people that were gay and serving in the Army and it didn’t bother me one bit. Also have read critics’ claims that military leaders are on a witch hunt to chapter out gay soldiers. This is also untrue. As long as a soldier shows up on time, works hard during the duty day, and stays out of trouble when off duty they are alright by me no matter if the person is gay or not. The vast majority of leaders in the military I have served with feel the same way. I have not once seen unit leadership conduct a witch hunt for gay soldiers.Â
Critics also state that due to military recruiting challenges (which by the way is a fallacy), allowing gays to openly serve would increase overall recruiting numbers. This claim is misleading because once again gays are allowed to serve. They just can’t do things like march in a gay pride parade or get caught having sex in the barracks. I knew an E5 (sergeant rank for you non-Army types) that brought who we all pretty much knew was his gay lover to the unit BBQ, but since he didn’t make a public declaration that this was his gay lover and just described him as his "friend"; the unit command had no obligation to investigate him. Truthfully no one really cared because once again he was a decent E5 that showed up to work and did his job well.Â
In the article the General Shalikashvili states that since "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" was first implemented, 11,000 soldiers have been chaptered out of the military. It is important to remember that this overall number is inflated because of people pretending to be gay to get out of the military, but it really doesn’t matter because the number is so small anyway. This number comes out to roughly a little less than a thousand soldiers a year on average chaptered for being gay. This number is nothing compared to soldiers chaptered for such things as being overweight, or physical fitness test failures, and mental disorders. So does this open the door to allowing overweight and mentally and physically unfit soldiers to stay in the military as well? What about discrimination against the handicapped? I’m just waiting for some activist group to take up the cause that the military discriminates against obese people. If the military isn’t allowed to discriminate against gay people than why should it be allowed to discriminate against obese people?Â
So in my opinion I think President Clinton got it right with the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy. It allows gays to serve in the military without opening the Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences which I mentioned above that would effect the readiness of the military. Overall, readiness and not playing politically correct social games is the bottom line for military leaders. Either that or we could just implement the Starship Troopers policy of total equality in standards and we all shower together, men, women, gay; straight, obese, crazy, handicapped, etc.
HT: Milblogs
It is the sad reality. No mistake...
2:28 am on January 4th, 2007 1
So the gay major we caught with a male specialist in the major's POV after curfew a few weeks ago just had an early edition of the New York Times? And the MP's let him go because they already knew it was a lost cause?
Since they were gay, does that allow them to blow off curfew and fraternization policy?
This is dangerous…just as I have been afraid to make on-the-spot corrections on females or minorities for fear that I would end up victimized by sexual harassment or equal opportunity nazis, now I'll have to watch my mouth for fear that the gay nazis will soon be able to persecute me.
2:56 am on January 4th, 2007 2
If gays are not banned from the military, why discharge them based on it
http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/06/dont.ask/
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Pentagon discharged a record 997 service members for homosexuality last year, officials say. But in a soon-to-be released report, the Pentagon argues that its "don't ask, don't tell" policy is working.
What bothers you and what is happening are two different things
3:46 am on January 4th, 2007 3
Alvin,
Gays are not banned from the military. If they break established regulations they will be discharged for that, however as Mark pointed out guys that do get caught are sometimes allowed to go because people don't want to deal with it because political correct nazis will come after them.
Your logic is exactly the reason why military leaders are concerned. If someone is allowed in overweight why should they be discharged for that? If someone is allowed in a physical fitness test failure why should they be discharged for that? Pretty soon it becomes the military cannot discriminate against anyone.
Currently overweight and non-fit recruits are allowed in with the expectation that they will meet the Army's standards and regulations once they reach their units after basic training and AIT, just like a homosexual soldier is allowed to enlist with the expectatin that they to will meet the Army's standards and regulations.
11:27 am on January 4th, 2007 4
GI, as a "practicing Christian" I assume you give a certain amount of lip-credence to Jesus Christ. He affirmed the Old Testament's law. In this law Jehovah declared homosexuality an "abomination".
Now, I understand after you watched the program "Queer eye for the straight GI" … the adorable abominable gay man — as long as he shows up to work on time, and doesn't poke you in the shower-stall when you bend over to pick-up dropped soap — is now "tolerated" by you as long as military "readiness" is NOT compromised. For Christians of your caliber, "tolerance" for crimes against nature is now considered "Justice" and "Love".
I can only guess … you are Catholic.
Well, we all know the military groupthink also prizes "tolerance": after all, we live in a pluralistic society … one has to be tolerant of others. Unless, it's that nigger — Silly Sally.
Ahem …but, have you ever wondered why homosexuals are an abomination according to an omniscient God?
Well, I ain't as smart as God. However,in psycho-analytic terms: gay men are Oedipal conquerors: psychological father-killers who instinctively rebel against traditional authority as a personal life strategy. Their refusal to identify with the masculine principle creates a powerful compensatory — MAN HUNGER: the scrotum-pole becomes a delicious totemic lollipop for the gay man's hungry soul. He can't get enough pole to feed him — they are INSATIABLE. This refusal to identify with the father principle … along with father's authoritarian rules … makes the gayman a natural rebel and moral boundary crosser.(Analogous to the Marmot's ethnic cross-dressing). In a traditional society of dominant straightness, gays are the under-dog relying on in-group bitch-strategic power-plays against the out-group. In otherwords, they are expert subverters of the masculine orientated military society. The favorite tactic of under-dog gaymen within a hierarchical military society is to jump the command-chain over his immediate supervisor(father figure) and play the victim to the next superior in command (surrogate mother). It's like playing-off the mother(higher superior) against the hated father(gayman's immediate 'straight' supervisor). The ever-lauded "tolerance" ethos provides cover for the gay man's tactics … if the gay man is rightly called a "devious bitch" … the accuser goes into the "nigger file" labeled "Homo-phobe". Not good on one's performance evaluation sheet.
When the critical mass of abominable gaymen is reached within the military … the gayman's straight supervisor becomes automatically castrated by his above superior who himself is now gay (or, seduced into gayness) … and automatically sympathizes with the gay subordinate … because the subordinate gayman and Lt. general are tenderly smoking each other's pipes.
Condoning the military gay man is slow suicide for any hierarchical organization based on traditional masculine lines.
It's best to immediately jump to the STAR TROOPER scenario you described … with a military NO ANUS LEFT BEHIIND policy strictly enforced. That's where the military is headed … why not just get it all over with.
You have no problem with the abominable military gayman? It's nice to see a "Practicing Christian" soldier smarter than his own GOD. The power of the military groupthink is impressive.
11:38 am on January 4th, 2007 5
Why does Shali speak up now?
1. The Democrats are back in power.
2. Shali is a self-declared Democrat, who lives in WA state (normally elects DEMs to the House and Senate).
3. Shali is sending a signal to the National DEM party that he is a team player and he is ready to jump in to the political arena (I know, all generals are politicians…). Obviously, it takes backing from national party to make a run for high office – perhaps for the next Senate seat as a DEM from WA state.
4. The DEMs are always looking for a "military" poster child to prove they really don't "hate" the military (as many REPUBs accuse).
5. An Op-ED piece is a very sensible way of testing the waters. Now he's probably waiting by the phone.
Bonus prediction: GEN(R) Shinseki will someday be the next DEM Senator from Hawaii.
BTW, this is my first post to any Blog. Been reading this Blog for several months and it's great!!!!
12:23 pm on January 4th, 2007 6
Hey there Rommel,
Rule number ONE for this blog: Don't feed the Silly Sally. She has been given "Troll" status for rubbing against the grain of GI's ego. He believes in the free-change of ideas — until it hurts.
Rule number TWO: Shilly Shali is pro-USA military.
She, however, hates the mindless military groupthink too lazy to see that both Kerry and Bush are a dog and pony show — but, essentially the same animal behind the facade. Both are SKULL and BONES with a big secret. I don't play the false-polarity of Democrats and Republicans … such as the readers of this blog do.
Rule number THREE: again don't "dignify" Silly Sally with a response. This is a site for true Americans who have no qualms dying for Arabs, Koreans, ect. rather than the defense of the American Constitution and its sovereignty.
Rule FOUR: All commentators shall never speak in defense of the US constitution. Limited-government is OUT. Tyranny is … Well, the whole subject makes GI Korea … uncomfortable.
Rommel, glad to have you on board.
1:01 pm on January 4th, 2007 7
Yes Rommel welcome, hopefully this won't be your first and last comment. I was actually pondering the same thing if he was testing the waters with his Op-ed. When I was stationed at Ft. Lewis some buddies told me they saw him in the PX one day so I guess he really does live in WA.
However, General Shinseki I would be some what surprised if he agrees to be the Democrats poster boy. The Democrats have been throwing his name around for years now against Bush and you haven't seen him come out and make any public comments in support of the Democrats. I have actually met General Shinseki before and listened to a few speeches from him. He is not the greatest speaker but very competent and people I know who actually worked for him all liked him. So from this little exposure to him I did not get the impression that he had political ambitions where as a guy like General Wesley Clark everyone knew he had political ambitions once he retired.
2:52 pm on January 4th, 2007 8
So, GI what you are telling me is that if I go to the Army and I sign up but I tell them I am gay and I will stick to established regulations, they will sign me up?
I think not.
And what established regulation makes you unfit for duty if your gay?
I think it's funny that you try to use physical fitness standards as an analogy. Not only is it a bad analogy. Most gay men I know of are more physically fit then most stright men I know of.
I mean, if a person cannot meet the minimum physical requirements, then yes they should not be there.
Also Sally, if you follow Old Testement law, then shrimp and shelfish are an abomination too. Yet I see a lot of Christians eat them.
8:03 pm on January 4th, 2007 9
When a servicemember in a critical MOS can get kicked out like this, I'd say it's time for a policy change: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/
As for the Old Testament debate, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. The best translation of Leviticus 20:13 is, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."
As far as I know, gay men have quite different options than a man and woman do. Notice there is also no mention of women or lesbianism there. And if you're really into literalism, as Alvin mentioned above, lay off the shrimp.
10:48 pm on January 4th, 2007 10
Silly Sally, you forget, we are speaking of the US Army, not the christian army. I am in the US Army, but I am not christian. Nevertheless, I am not breaking ANY regulation in the Army by not being christian.
Should I follow the US's laws, Army regulations, and the laws of the countries I go to, or should I ditch all that and follow christian laws only?
"Mark 12:17 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
17And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."
Even the bible recognizes separation of church and state.
As far as whether or not homosexuality is natural, start looking into what 'natural' is. I would say determining what is natural and what is 'unnatural' and what is 'natural' could best be accomplished by observing nature. Military vehicles, barracks, TA-50, etc.? Unnatural. Homosexuality? Natural. How could it be natural?
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
If anything, the concept of worshipping a god is unnatural, as animals do not worship gods. I'll let it slide, though. If someone was to practice religion, I say let them, so long as they don't try to ram it down everyone else's throat.
"Revelation 22 (New International Version)
11Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."
In other words, let it be.
11:00 pm on January 4th, 2007 11
A army recruiter will not ask you if you are gay. If they do they are violating Army regulations and will get in serious trouble. Also even if you voluntarily told a recruiter you are gay most recruiters I know will sign you up anyway and inform you of the Army policy because they are under so much presssure to meet their recruiting mission.
Once again the issue is not about being gay, most people in the military could care less, the real issue is the Army's ability to discriminate.
6:05 am on January 5th, 2007 12
I think Silly Sally is closet female Korean American GI in USFK. She knows more than she is mentioning here in your blog.
10:37 am on January 5th, 2007 13
Erik,
Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
The meaning of abomination: a person or behavior that is loathsome or disgusting. Apparently the sacred sensibility of the Hebrew God considers homosexuality repugnant… detestible even. The revelating spirit behind the book of Revelations even describes homosexuals as barred from the heavenly Jerusalem.
Yet, GI Korea (a self-admitted 'practicing Christian') finds the omniscient God a bit "intolerant"… and personally welcomes the abominable gayman into his Army — just as long as Nancy Boy keeps his adorable hands to himself at work.
Jesus Christ said no disciple is above his teacher. Yet, GI enjoys a higher tolerance level than his own God. How can this be? In my opinion GI Korea is merely a cultural Catholic steeped in the traditions of Catholic socialism. He, therefore, views God in evolutionary terms: In the beginning God was a hunched over homo-phobe walking assisted with his hairy arms … and after millions of years — now walking fully upright filled with multicultural and pan-sexual tolerance … fully illumined up to GI Korea's level of spiritual attainment.
I think GI Korea is a perfect example of the post-modern gospel of self-esteem. He is smarter than his own God. That is why you can take his divine viewpoints to the bank … good as gold.
Now for the rest of you who are honest pagans, we must argue about "fags in fatigues" with a more pragmatic approach: a concern for maintaining the 'readiness' of the US military as an effective tool for the Skull and Bones agenda.
Like it or not, the above psycho-analytic description is accurate: homosexuals are intrinsic spoilers of hierarchical goal-based organizations. Every homosexual behind every variety of gay personality is a psychological father-killer: Oedipal Conquerors.
By their very character-structure gays degrade systems. For this very reason the military has a cagey instinct about these matters … and very reluctantly bends to pressures towards social engineering from New-Age feminists and fellow conspirators who have long-ago infiltrated the Pentagon… now requiring our military leaders to obtain sensitivity training in small encounter groups: hence, weepy top-brass such as Lt. General Charles Campbell.
The socialists are turning Yongsan into a gay leisure resort.
10:43 am on January 5th, 2007 14
Kaptain Kim,
Lets just say this: When you think I am NOT looking, I still catch your elevator eyes all over me. The rest of us girls have a running joke about you … but, it's not fit for the internet.
11:05 am on January 5th, 2007 15
One more thing, after getting the creeps thinking about our Kaptain Kim-garoo. I must inform you all why ancient Israelites were instructed to avoid certain foods (such as avoiding eating shrimp, pigs,ect.). The reason: to develop a moral faculty for discernment; in other words, aquiring the mental capacity to distinguish between sacred and profane, clean and unclean, good and evil, just and unjust. Before Israel — mankind's consciousness was a wild-weed where pleasure = good, and pain = bad. Cultures — such as Korea — did not benefit from this kind of moral training. The result: Koreans are inveterate amoral opportunists with no inner appreciation of right and wrong outside of pain and pleasure.
Hence, we have people like Kaptain Kim… moral idiots involved in Community Service programs… all show with no underlying substance. He never had a chance… being Korean by socialization.
GI, Korea, however, is the case of a white-boy going slowly Asian –like the Marmot — becoming groupthink zombies tolerating Rump Rangers in the ranks.
I want my military back!
6:08 pm on January 5th, 2007 16
The movie “Starship Troopers†showed the equality you mentioned at the closing of your post, but in the book combat units were strictly men only, and living quarters on the ships were also strictly segregated (few meals together, much less showers). The book, btw, is a lot better than the movie as it goes into the citizen vs. civilian idea more fully.
9:27 am on January 6th, 2007 17
Miguk who recently returned home.
Very interesting about your take on Revelation
22:"Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.â€
Your interpretation is interesting: "In other words, let it be."
I think you are correct. The era of western governments undergirded by Judeo-Christian values and traditions is over. In Revelations it speaks of paganism's mortal wound being atonishingly healed, where Satan will arise again from the abyss and rule Western civilization as it previously did before Christ's first coming and death. The Christian era is over. When this pagan revival happens, all appeals to repent and return to Christian values will be ignored. Therefore, the admonition for the holy to remain holy, and the vile remain vile. Christianity has been stopped in its tracks. It's judgement time.
What I find curious is a special brand of paganism with a Christian face that GI Korea represents. A muscular Christianity. A peculiar military cult that thinks pagan, but talks Christian. I think GI Korea represents the very spirit of the anti-Christ mentioned in the Bible. Satanic Christianity. For this reason he welcomes the corroding influence of Silly Sally's Oedipal Conquerors into his military — the abominable gayman. GI, really doesn't care about the integrity of his own organization. It's this false Christianity in the military that is the true source of corruption within the military. Not the gayman, per se. Don't you think?
2:31 pm on January 6th, 2007 18
It wouldn't bother me in the least to work with someone who is gay. I have worked, in the military, with gay men and women in the past and will again in the future. The one thing I am worried about is the same I worry about with any of my soldiers; can they do thier job? Now, if an officer and a lower enlisted soldier are caught doing things together, while breaking something like curfew not to mention total disregard of the fratenization policy, then they should get the same treatment no matter what thier sex or sexual orientation.
GI is right about the recruiters for sure, as long as thier recruit makes it to (not through) basic. I also thought that this was a political move due to the timing.
2:33 pm on January 6th, 2007 19
Edit:
GI is right about the recruiters for sure, as long as thier recruit makes it to (not through) basic, then the recruiter still gets his numbers.
3:39 pm on January 6th, 2007 20
Besotted Tom,
The question is not about your personal preference for team-mates, nor your arbitrary standard of "Can they do the job". It's about the overall welfare and integrity of an important institution such as the military.
What I find amazing about straight soldiers's opinions over the gay troops issue, is a complete lack of systemic thinking and lack of concern for the big picture.
I don't doubt that your enlightened tolerance is connected to a profound sensitivity to the music of life unbounded by the gross conventions of past values, but it would behoove you to think more serious about your self-absorbed preferences. You must take seriously the fact that a permissive society is not necessarily a civilized society. The military requires men who maintain a semblence of fidelity in their lives. Gaymen are GAY because they revel in their permissive attitudes and lifestyles.
The Abominable Gayman, as Silly Sally has rightly pointed-out, is a natural system destroyer by dint of the gay character structure. Why should we respect your preference for gays in the military when such is a fact.
Do you loath the US military?
4:15 pm on January 6th, 2007 21
Edit: "Do you 'loathe' the military?"
The reason I ask — the new enlightened tolerance for the Abominable Gayman within the military — appears to be a death wish for this fine classic institution. Where does this hatred for the military come from? Why would someone willingly inflict the Abominable Gayman on military society? What purpose? Is it a simple need for queer cannon-fodder? Why? Are we running out of healthy straight soldiers? Do uou have a fetish for drag queens with prosthetic legs? Very creepy.
7:14 pm on January 6th, 2007 22
“The question is not about your personal preference for team-mates, nor your arbitrary standard of “Can they do the job. It’s about the overall welfare and integrity of an important institution such as the military.â€
You mean like post WW2 desegregation, or women in combat? People talked about the overall welfare and integrity with those very same subjects.
“The Abominable Gayman, as Silly Sally has rightly pointed-out, is a natural system destroyer by dint of the gay character structure. Why should we respect your preference for gays in the military when such is a fact?â€(sic)
Now let me jump into my magic “wayback†comment post where somebody someplace said something similar once upon a time:
“The Abominable WOMAN or BLACKMAN is a natural system destroyer by dint of the FEMALE or BLACK character structure. Why should we respect your preference for WOMEN or BLACKS in the military when such is a fact?
But here is my personal fav:
The Abominable Snowman is a natural system destroyer by dint of the Yeti character structure. Why should we respect your preference for Snowmen in the military when such is a fact?
Prove to me the gay man has destroyed any system.
“What I find amazing about straight soldier’s opinions over the gay troops issue, is a complete lack of systemic thinking and lack of concern for the big picture.â€
You mean the right wing/Christian “big picture�
Because mine obviously differs from yours. I don't understand how a civilian can see the "big picture" from the same point of view as a soldier.
“Are we running out of healthy straight soldiers?â€
I believe so. If not, then I would like to know why I am on my third tour of Iraq. Oh, and I have done a tour in the ‘Ghan as well.
The Army has dropped its standards, changed its uniforms, raised the age limit, raised the amount of new foreign/non-US citizens, and made basic training user friendly. And we still just barely make quota. I do not think letting a few openly gay guys serve is any big deal. They are already here anyways.
It’s a bit of a waste when you spend all of that money on training a soldier and a few years into his duty he gets kicked out for enjoying the “sausage fest†at the NCO club just a bit too much.
Oh, and how do you feel about Bi female soldiers? No straight male in his right mind wants to kick them out. Not the ones I happen to serve with. Lets not even get on about fidelity, this is the military you are talking about, ‘tis a bit of an oxymoron me thinks. Unless of course you mean Army vs Navy or something on that level.
I do not hate the military, that’s why I am a LIFER. But I am not afraid of change either. I can see it coming a mile away.
As far as fetishes go, I dig Asian chicks. Without the extra “hardware†if you catch my drift.
Damn, I forgot about the old gay man that used to be a regular at the bar I tended. A Pearl Harbor survivor. Or was he less of a hero because he liked guys. Did his sacrifice mean as much because he was a periha on society.
You know you get a much better view of the big picture when you start thinking horizontally rather than vertically, right?
BTW, my “music of life†consists of heavy crunching guitars, unintelligible screaming, and a huge mosh pit right in front where I can violently thrash about. In other words, my life ROCKS!!!
3:44 am on January 7th, 2007 23
Dr. Tom Besotted Luther King.
Homosexuals = blacks? Well, if you say so. I see YOU HAVE A DREAM where one day gay and straight soldiers will one day fight together hand in hand.
You ask for proof how gays degrade "any" system? Well, once a K-Y jelly assisted back-door entrance takes place, the neurological system becomes instantly re-wired … it's up to you to decide if the initiated soldier's neurological re-organization is an improvement or not. But, since your life ROCKS and military Christians agree … we really should consider an all-volunteer Pink Army.
8:45 am on January 7th, 2007 24
"Homosexuals = blacks? Well, if you say so. I see YOU HAVE A DREAM where one day gay and straight soldiers will one day fight together hand in hand."
You really missed the point here. But that's ok because I see you are truly the expert:
"You ask for proof how gays degrade “any†system? Well, once a K-Y jelly assisted back-door entrance takes place, the neurological system becomes instantly re-wired.."
So scientific and medically profound.
I'll no longer be feeding this vacuum
10:08 pm on January 7th, 2007 25
Silly Sally,
Please admit it. You are not Korean. You are an White American Male pretending to be Korean female.
8:55 am on January 8th, 2007 26
Kim,
Yes, I am aware the white male is the biggest bogeyman of Korean male pride, but no, I am not male.
A Korean's sexism never ceases to amaze me. Just because I can think logically doesn't automatically make me a Western male.
If you think about it, the Korean-American female — not a white boy — is your biggest critic: not having the wool pulled over her eyes by Korean brainwashing from birth, a normal Korean-American woman is appalled by the megalomania and spiritual psychosis Korean males suffer and enjoy.
Believe me, we girls are aware of you. But, don't be flattered by what we think.
9:29 am on January 8th, 2007 27
Besotted Tom,
Don let Eldridge get you down. Your becoming a sodomite by forsaking your vacuum pump device is NOT the answer. Just keep "rocking-on" and feed your vacuum. It's a lot safer. Abominable gaymen carry nasty bugs.