You know, there is a mountain of stuff that was written about gays in the military that was 100% against their serving. You name it and someone wrote it or said it. Hell, just the fact that the psychiatric club regarded being gay as a mental illness was sufficient to be against gays in the military. That view changed but, still, gays were not permitted in the military. Some were flighty and swishy. Others were going to have hard-ons in the bay showers. You name it. So, now, that’s all behind us. Gays are welcome and it is taboo to disparage men who screw other men in the ass. It’s the new normal. Well, recent history is repeating itself, only this time around it’s transgenders and this time around there is little debate. Next will be dog boinkers, I guess. After all, if the dog screwer can do his job, what difference does it make? It’s all good. So, jump on board the transformation train. It cannot be stopped now anyway.
37 comments
"men who screw other men in the ass"
The Fundiespeak meaning of 'gay sex'.
"Next will be dog boinkers, I guess"
INFORMED CONSENT, motherfucker! Do you KNOW it??
I've seen the cesspool that is that website; and it makes me ashamed to be military. I don't think any of them understand concepts out of marching drill, opening fire on people, or whining that they can't open fire on people.
@Mimic Octopus:
Ahhh, the Thebans. <3
You know, there is a mountain of stuff that was written about blacks in the military that was 100% against their serving. You name it and someone wrote it or said it.
If you're actually an Air Cav vet, you should be aware of how the Red Tails proved that idea wrong. I doubt that you're so attractive that you have to worry about being propositioned by gays in the showers.
"
You know, there is a mountain of stuff that was written about gays in the military that was 100% against their serving."
It was also 100% cow exhaust.
++"You name it and someone wrote it or said it."
Yeah, that's how it goes when fundies and bigots go their usual route of accusing their targets of every vile, stupid or just plain nonsensical thing they can think of. If you've proven anything , it's that there's a vast gulf between "saying something" and "saying something of any merit".
++"After all, if the dog screwer can do his job, what difference does it make?"
If it's legal? Absolutely none.
If they were/are against serving than why are they serving? Military service is a choice. No one should serve if they don't want to. It's stupid to think that gay's are serving in the military just to cause a scene. No most homosexuals who serve are serving for the same reason most heterosexuals are serving because they want to protect their country.
Really if your right and no gays want to serve than why are you so against letting them openly serve? Because if you are right no gays will join up. You are afiad you are wrong.
You know, there is a mountain of stuff that was written about gays in the military that was 100% against their serving. You name it and someone wrote it or said it. Hell, just the fact that the psychiatric club regarded being gay as a mental illness was sufficient to be against gays in the military.
Yeah, that was some 30 years ago.
Besides, there have always been gays in the military, only now they don't have to remain closeted.
You know, there is a mountain of stuff that was written about gays in the military that was 100% against their serving. You name it and someone wrote it or said it.
There is a German saying, “Papier ist geduldig” (roughly transl. “Paper is not complaining”). Just because people write something down doesn’t make it true. That’s even more so in the age of the interwebs.
After all, if the dog screwer can do his job, what difference does it make? It’s all good.
OK, setting aside the issue of informed consent, if someone’s sexual preferences don’t interfere with their ability to do their job then what’s the fucking problem1?
First, you leave Astrotrain out of this!
Second, yes, that's correct. So long as laws aren't broken and someone can do their job, why should a single fuck be given? The military is supposed to be rather pragmatic about this sort of thing, not a "hur hur we're totally manly men" club...
Well, other than the Marine Corps, where the men are men and so are the women. And who doesn't like manly women?
Slippery slope aside, what the fuck do you care whom your bunkmate screws and where as long as they`re both adults happy being with each other?
Second verse same as the first, the fuck you care if someone in your squad has had their genitals remade? If your unit isn`t coed you`re still not going to be seeing him/her much. Now, if your fear was about transfemales and transmales not being up to the rough and ready standards of your miltiary, let me say I know one From our own army and she`s one person I` like to have my back in a combat scenario, not something I could say about most cis males I`ve ever known.
They said pretty much the same thing about women in the military. I wouldn't count on your arguments being valid reasons to exclude "dog boinkers."
That is to say, there may be valid reasons out there, but they're not yours.
@tipsyGnostalgic
"Manly" and "bombshell" are not mutually exclusive. Well, unless bombshell doesn't include Amazonian beauty, but why wouldn't it?
But that's just my opinion. All of my ex-military relatives were Army (and 1/3 of my ex-military friends was Navy), so I'm obligated to take a potshot at the Corps.
@ #1831479
My gay cousin was in the Navy for nearly ten years. Laws against his enlistment didn't stop him. I'm fairly certain he wasn't the only one to get away with it.
I know a right wing fundie who is utterly convinced that everyone in the Navy is gay, or at least those who serve on ships.
Dogs can't give informed consent, that's the difference.
What about men who screw women in the ass? And gays who don't have anal sex?
When bestiality becomes legal, I'll demonstrate against it, okay? It'll be snowing here in DC in August, but I'll still march.
Why do fundies keep insisting that women and gay people shouldn't be allowed in the military because they won't be able to serve? If recruits aren't able to perform strenuous physical activity or follow orders instead of ogling their squadmates, they won't be allowed in anyway, regardless of their sexuality or gender. Do they think the military just hands you camo gear and a rifle and drops you on the battlefield?
Really, the whole thing just shows that anti-gay arguments are just more sophisticated ways of saying 'Eww, gross!'
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.