The government is so preoccupied with insuring gays are treated justly by the military that they have forgotten about the privacy rights of heterosexual soldiers. Just as female soldiers have a right not to goggled at in their sleeping quarters and where they shower and relieve themselves, male soldiers should have the same right. And in a way, a female being regarded as a sex object by a man is at least not perverse. A male soldier being regarded as a sex object by another male soldier is bound to feel disgusted, in the same way altar boys are disgusted by the priests who fondle them.
Homosexuality isn’t immoral, just perverse and decadent
That’s right. If one rejects what the Hebrew book of fantasies, AKA, the Bible, says about homosexuals, and I do, then what is the basis for considering homosexuality immoral. Disgusting does not logically imply immoral. A person who doesn’t wipe his ass after taking a shit is disgusting, not immoral.
But perhaps we should take a look at what the wise god of the Hebrews says about homosexuality:
“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)
Now that’s sick!
I don’t want to get into ethical issues because most Americans (including our War Chief Obama) don’t know shit about ethics. But I will says this:
1. Homosexual sexual behavior isn’t normal but that doesn’t make it immoral.
2. Homosexual sexual behavior spreads disease. Well so does heterosexual sexual behavior. Spreading sexually transmitted diseases can be immoral, depending on the behavior, but one’s sexual orientation is irrelevant.
3. Homosexual sex is perverse. But tons of online porn shows that the sexual behavior of millions of heterosexuals is perverse.
Ergo, homosexual behavior may be disgusting but is not in itself immoral, except from the point of view of those who have been Judaized.
Lesbianism
I pass no judgment of lesbianism. Given that men are mean, brutal, and unreliable, I understand perfectly that some women would rather avoid relationships with men, thus avoid being harassed, battered, and abandoned with child.
Obama challenges GOP to support gay troops but he has no moral authority
I say Obama has no moral authority because no warmonger has any moral authority. This piece of immoral shit has (1) expanded the use of killer drones and has authorized their use against propagandists such as Anwar al Awlak, who encouraged the killing of Americans because their military occupies two Muslim nations and their government supports dictators such as Ali Abdullah Saleh, dictator of Yemen (Anwar's homeland).
Next the missiles will rain down on American bloggers critical of the government or more likely the men in black will arrive in the night to have the blogger disappear, perhaps in a cornfield where the Mafia buries its victims.
Obama is a moral hypocrite who believes America has the right to slaughter the people of Afghanistan but then assassinates a man who says the Afghan people should defend themselves by killing Americans. The reasoning of the man Obama had assassinated is the very same as that of the Jewish Zealots who killed not only the Romans who occupied Palestine but also the Jews who collaborated with the Romans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pjQa8ykjVM
Here are our brave, decent soldiers in action:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370758/Shocking-video-shows-U-S-troops-cheering-airstrike-blows-Afghan-civilians.html
And Anwar al Awlak was the bad guy? Go figure.
And while Obama is carrying out assassinations of Islamic freedom fighters, Hispanic crazies are shooting up the freeways of Hispanicized California. Take a look:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/04/suspected-freeway-shooter-arrested-la-county/
One victim didn’t want to give his name. Why? Because the state is overrun with Hispanic gangs. THEY are the insurgents Americans fear. But these are people who will help get ½-alien Obama reelected.
As far as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda threat is concerned, America’s cantaloupes are more of a threat to Americans. Of course, this does not include the bloodthirsty U.S. soldiers occupying Afghanistan and killing the Afghan people. But killers deserve to die. That's the way the game is played. That's why we have capital punishment. Just because they are following orders doesn't mean shit. That was the excuse the German Nazis used. People didn't buy it then, and they don't buy it now.
(2) And warmonger, Zionist pit-bull, phony Democrat Obama has given Israel bunker buster bombs.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4126503,00.html
The implication is that the U.S. will look the other way if the bombs are used on Iran, just as it looked the other way when the Jews attacked the USS Liberty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRZSzdQuOqM
(3) Obama betrayed the Palestinians because he has become Israel’s house negro...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT7Tgr9zZ14
Yeah, this is what Oreo Obama stands for. He’s just like Bush, who was Israel’s nigger, actually following a long line of American Hebrew boot-licking presidents such as Bill Clinton.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/clilist.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bushlist.htm
Fuck gays are angels compared to the Jews and their lackeys.
Don’t ask don’t tell was the best ethical policy all around
First of all I don’t understand that gays should get special status just because they are a group of men who like sodomizing one another. The fucking government has given these pleasure-seeking perverts martyr status. Don’t ask don’t tell allowed them to participate in the military. But they want to serve openly in the military.
The problem with that is heterosexual soldiers might not enjoy being seen as objects of desire by other soldiers when they are naked. If they see a gay soldier with an erection goggling them in the shower they might feel disgusted. That’s why the military doesn’t have coed barracks. Female soldiers don’t want to be drooled over by male soldiers. You see THAT is an issue only for heterosexual soldier. It’s even more disgusting if the straight soldier (like 90% of the U.S. population) believes homosexuality is a perversion.
And it is. Not only because men wanting to have sex with men is perverse but also because homosexuals are defined by their sexual appetite. That’s what they live for. Take a look at this video. Why must gay guy be shirtless to make his point?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7_tlDwm9Aw
What future military parades will look like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh3oVCkJerk
Again, gays are unbridled epicureans (not to be confused with Epicurean philosophy) or debauch hedonists. That may be unappealing to people whose role models are Socrates, Jesus, or Buddha, but such a lifestyle isn’t in itself immoral, especially if it isn’t harming someone else. And though I’m critical of gays promoting their hedonistic lifestyle as being normal or just as wholesome as any other, I believe homophobes overstate the influence that gays have on society. The appeal of their lifestyle to normal guys is quite limited. Like how many guys in high school would give up marrying a woman to marry a man after seeing this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Ph6avNuQk
Not many. The appeal of the gay lifestyle can’t be having sex with other men but only living a hedonistic lifestyle and going to gay bars and steam baths to have sex in the toilet or steam bath. Having sex 24/7 is their way of life.
Even so, I don’t see gay men as disgusting as these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Ph6avNuQk
Big question—why would gays want to be a part of that? It’s got to be the desire to live in close quarters with those macho men and seeing them naked.
I saw in the newspaper a gay soldier had tears in his eyes after don’t ask don’t tell was eliminated. He said he would no longer have to keep silent about his gayness (and thus his right to free speech not be violated). But does he really believe those macho straight soldiers want to see photos of his gay sweetheart or hear about their brokeback sodomy experience? I don't think so. In fact, that could be dangerous.
Sen. John McCain gets into the act
He told CBS, “The fact is we should honor every man and woman who is serving in the military and should in no way treat them with anything but the highest regard.” Like his comrades in the Vietnam War:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tlIUogMorg&feature=related
Highest regard? Maybe if you're a serial killer. But I’m sure McCain regrets that he missed out on that fun.
Thank god we have godly men to lead us out of the darkness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdN_cQ4GHVs
So what is the moral issue?
A man who shits and doesn’t wipe is not immoral just filthy and disgusting. However, to force others to live in close proximity of such a man and his filth would be immoral because:
(1) Those others suffer from the stench and feelings nausea caused by the unclean shitter.
(2) They are given no choice in the matter, that is, they are forced to live in close proximity with someone who fills them with disgust. (In the case of the homosexual soldier, the disgust other soldiers experience comes from being regarded as a sex object by another man.)
Just as it would be unfair to require female soldiers to share their privacy with male soldiers who see them as sex objects, it is unfair to require heterosexual male soldiers to share their privacy with homosexual men who see them as sex objects.
And of course official support for allowing gay to come out of the closet in the military is as simplistic as the arguments used to justify the criminal wars the U.S. government has been involved in. Adm. Mullin simply skirts the issue by saying it’s wrong to force gays to lie about sexually perverse lifestyle and that to allow gays to live openly in the military is the right thing to do. End of argument. I mean he’s wearing the uniform and medals so he must be right.
Defense Secretary Gates simply said “We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly.” That the old just-doing-my-duty argument. It works with blowing up villages and assassinations so why not with gay in the military. What did the Command in Chief say? If you want to be commander in chief “You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient.”
Or when it's not morally convenient. But IT IS POLITICALLY CONVENIENT. And if his argument holds, then why doesn’t Obama stand up for gay marriage—which is a far less onerous than forcing straight soldiers to live with openly gay men. I will tell you why. Obama wants to play both sides of the street—to be a Republican and a Democrat. Thus he’s nothing but a political animal—and political animals lack moral substance (are morally nothing) because morality is subordinate to whatever it takes to further one's political career.
For example, during the past ten years we've seen a lot of standing up for soldiers who tortured or killed innocent men, women, and children. In the case of women, sometimes raping them before killing them. Another example would be to please the politically powerful Jews in the U.S. by giving Israelis bunker-busting bombs and using America's U.N. veto power to crush the Palestinians.
And Sen. McCain (who betrayed Americans living in Arizona to the illegal aliens and sought to do the same to all Americans with his and Ted Kennedy’s amnesty bill) said pretty much the same thing. In other words, when necessary or politically convenient, morality can be suspended. That’s what America is all about: America is right even when it’s wrong.
So it’s all about politics
So what is the motivation of Obama, McCain and other politicians who support gays serving openly in the military? Morality? Hell no. Politics. Gay votes and the fact gays become noisily hysterical when they don’t get their way. None of this has anything to do with morality, only politics.
Paleolithic Republicans could beat Obama this time
Most the country now hates Obama’s guts. He’s not much more popular than Bush junior, who he’s a lot alike. Thus they can’t beat him because Obama is as much Republican as he is Democrat. He offers both WAR and BUTTER and will get the vote of the illegals’ anchor babies. Republicans could win if they (1) offered a little less war, (2) revise the 14th Amendment so the children of non-Americans born in the U.S. do not automatically receive citizenship, (3) at least look as if they care more about ordinary Americans than they do about billionaires, (4) let Israel take care of itself, and (5) fairly tax the obscenely wealthy. But if they did that they would be an American political party rather than republicans.
An American party? That's not going to happen. So the same old shit will continue forever in that bad-news reality show called America.
