Gay sailor's death called a ' hate killing'

[Miyamoto Musashi]

Raychel Roo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why, did I strike a nerve?
<quoted text>
Fallacy. Homosexuals do not typically kill heterosexuals BECAUSE they are heterosexuals. It's the BECAUSE part that is important, although the numbers are, too, and far more heterosexuals have killed homosexuals that vice versa.

You'll have a helluva time convincing me that "ACT UP!" standing in front of TV cameras in the seventies threatening and then accomplishing the intentional infection of heterosexuals wasn't because they were hetero.

In recent history alone, gays have much more blood on their foul, conspiratorial hands than vice versa... A simple truth people generally avoid in their attempts to legitimize a lifestyle repugnant to 98% of mankind.

[Miyamoto Musashi]

RickIL wrote:

<quoted text>
The Japanese have killed more than the Chinese than vice versa. Sometimes they have even taken pregnant Chinese woman, slashed their wombs open, cut out the baby, killed the baby in front of the horrified mother, then cuts off the head of the mother. That is why Japanese people are bad. They shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military.
Miyamoto what twisted login you have....you can take rare incidents and extrapolate it to the hundreds of millions of gay people alive in the world. Get a life, get an education, get some logic.

Maybe you should be addressing "Raychel", who wishes to emotionalize the board by generalizing about how many gays are killed because they are gay. It couldn't be simply that the ones killed were simply pricks...

"Hundreds of millions"... Hey, that sounds like a good number to go to camp.

[Miyamoto Musashi]

Tizzle wrote:

<quoted text>
Rota Naval Station Spain. where I went to high school. Students as low in grade level as tenth had sailor's for boyfriend's with consent of their parents. 7th grade girls were always being busted in the barracks either engaged in, or about to engage in, sex with the sailors. A girl in the 10th grade was taken to the pier by her mother when the ships docked so they could both score a horny seaman. A hetero sailor beat and raped an 11th grade girl behind the bowling alley.
The point: based soley off of my experience at Rota, the Navy is not a staple in "legal" living.
There's also this little saying "What happens at sea, stays at sea"... hmmm, sort of like Vegas...

As I've often said... The issue has never been solely that you guys are homosexual. The issue is that you primarily want to change ALL perception of morality for EVERYONE on earth about EVERYTHING.

[Viktor Renquist]

the_truth_be_told2006 wrote:

<quoted text>
Raychel (I'm guessing you're female), would you be comfortable showering with a group of men that find you attractive, even though you prefer women? No? Then why would you subject heterosexual men to the same treatment, and not expect resistance? Please don't try the "gays aren't like that" routine, becuase if they weren't like that, they wouldn't be gay now, would they?
If you really really want gays in the military, you have to consider coed everything. Women would be the loudest complainers and it would never pass. But it is the only solution.

Just because *you* are checking the other blokes out in the shower, it doesn't mean that *openly* gay people will bother. Come outta the closet, old son, it's good for your soul

[the_truth_be_tol d2006]

Excellent.
Exactly the types of responses I wanted to get. It cuts to the very heart of this whole situation, which is the gays feeling that their "rights" should trump everyone's else.
They don't.
When I brought in the female reversal, no one dared to touch it, because it's a battle you can't win; women are renowned for their puritanical views in such matters and would never comply, but it's really the same situation whether heterosexuals outnumber gays or not.
People should be afforded privacy. It doesn't matter if gays feel they have unnatural control over their sexual tensions.
Your "rights" are no more tangible than anyone else's.

[the_truth_be_tol d2006]

Viktor Renquist wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because *you* are checking the other blokes out in the shower, it doesn't mean that *openly* gay people will bother. Come outta the closet, old son, it's good for your soul

Dude, being gay doesn't make you more "sensitive". Being gay doesn't make you more "enlightened". Being gay doesn't make you "knowledgeable".
Being gay means that you like to stick things in your butt. That's about it. Since we hava a complete failure as president, gay may get to roam freely in the military, at great expense to the moral and profeciency of the fighting force, but you should never expect respect nor acceptance for your deviance. The reprocussions will outdistance the gains you think you may make.

[Rose T-H]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

Reminds me of the Barry Winchell case.

More like the Allen Shindler case.

Here is a very enlightening video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

And there are more that occur than we will hear about:(

[Tizzle]

Actually, while my sister was in the Army, they held a "sensitivity training" conference. The question about gays serving openly was brought up and a few male soldiers became disgruntled and expressed their opposition. My sister (bless her heart) bluntly suggested that they should get over it and heaven forbid they should have to experience the same sexual harrassment female soldiers experience from male soldiers. She said she was amazed that the facilitator (a male) actually agreed with her.
As to your suggestion about co-ed showers... you are aware that aside from basic and technical schools and some areas in the field, communal showers are not as prevelant. It is because the military is constantly changing its standards of living. I recall when I first joined, every gym was open bay showers but as I was sepparating the base gyms had already started to incorperate separate showers. Also as one other poster pointed out: have all the other militaries that allow out homosexuals to serve opted for a co-ed shower arrangement. I personally do not know but I'm willing to bet that you do not either. Thus exposing a potential falacy to your argument.
and I notice that you haven't touched the fact that straight soldiers are ALREADY showering with gay soldiers. They just don't know it. LOL!

[OkieDarren]

the_truth_be_told2006--"D ude, being gay doesn't make you more "sensitive". Being gay doesn't make you more "enlightened". Being gay doesn't make you "knowledgeable".

No, but being a bigot makes you less sensitive, less enlightened, and less knowledgable.

"Being gay means that you like to stick things in your butt. That's about it."

God almighty you're an idiot. No, that is NOT about it, that's not even remotely close to it. Being gay isn't any more about sex than being straight is. It has NOTHING to do with what anyone "likes" or not. And plenty of straight people do that, too.

"Since we hava a complete failure as president, "

Wow, if you guys really WANT to promote that Republicanism means hate and bigotry, be my guest, but trust me you're full of crap.

"gay may get to roam freely in the military,"

Good, we need to stop throwing away perfectly good soldiers and sailors because of bigotry. Some of us care more about our country than hate.

"at great expense to the moral and profeciency of the fighting force,"

Lie. Your ignorance and bigotry harms the morale and strength of our nation, just as discrimination against blacks did.

"but you should never expect respect nor acceptance for your deviance."

You're an idiot. Being gay isn't deviance. You have no clue what the hell you're talking about, and YOU deserve no respect.

"The reprocussions will outdistance the gains you think you may make."

There is absolutely nothing gained whatsoever from this Jim Crow law. It harms our nation, it violates the most basic principles we're SUPPOSED to stand for, it benefits nobody. Your KKK hate isn't what our nation or our military is about.

[Tizzle]

<quoted text>Being gay and out in the Navy is a form of suicide, plain and simple.
DADT is still the law of the land and all of his superiors should be relived of command, for not immediately discharging him form the military.
Had they done so he possibly would still be alive today.
It saddens me that a life has been lost perhaps at the hands of another American.
EnochSpeaks

While I disagree with with DADT policy, I cannot disagree with your sentaments. Yes, he was in danger once he came out. The problem is that DADT fosters a military wide environment of homophobia and makes such violence all the more possible. It won't just go away when the policy is repealed (and it is just a matter of time, the law of the land will change) but it will change eventually. There are currently 500 "out" solidiers in the military who have faced little or no repercussion from their units or those they serve alongside with. The military mentality is already starting to change.

[OkieDarren]

Miyamoto Musashi wrote:

<quoted text>
As I've often said... The issue has never been solely that you guys are homosexual. The issue is that you primarily want to change ALL perception of morality for EVERYONE on earth about EVERYTHING.

Your bigotry and homophobia isn't moral. At all. Equality is.

[OkieDarren]

Miyamoto Musashi wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you should be addressing "Raychel", who wishes to emotionalize the board by generalizing about how many gays are killed because they are gay. It couldn't be simply that the ones killed were simply pricks...
"Hundreds of millions"... Hey, that sounds like a good number to go to camp.

So, you want to pretend, even as we see ANOTHER victim of a hate crime, that the victims DESERVED to be beaten and killed.
You want to promote Nazi ideas like that, you have no room to call anyone else on the planet a prick.

[OkieDarren]

Miyamoto Musashi wrote:

<quoted text>
You'll have a helluva time convincing me that "ACT UP!" standing in front of TV cameras in the seventies threatening and then accomplishing the intentional infection of heterosexuals wasn't because they were hetero.
In recent history alone, gays have much more blood on their foul, conspiratorial hands than vice versa... A simple truth people generally avoid in their attempts to legitimize a lifestyle repugnant to 98% of mankind.

Dispicable lies. Homosexuals didn't kill anyone, and it's the hate and bigotry of idiots like you that caused the AIDS crisis in the first place. If gay people could hang out, meet, date, fall in love and get married like everyone else, AIDS never would have happened. The threats and hate of bigots like you FORCED them to stay in hiding, and that's what caused the crisis.
Being gay is not a lifestyle, far more than 2 percent of the people in the world are gay, and your bigotry and hate is more repugnant to decent people than homosexuality, or any sex act imaginable.

[McMike]

the_truth_be_told2006 wrote:

Excellent.
Exactly the types of responses I wanted to get. It cuts to the very heart of this whole situation, which is the gays feeling that their "rights" should trump everyone's else.
They don't.
When I brought in the female reversal, no one dared to touch it, because it's a battle you can't win; women are renowned for their puritanical views in such matters and would never comply, but it's really the same situation whether heterosexuals outnumber gays or not.
People should be afforded privacy. It doesn't matter if gays feel they have unnatural control over their sexual tensions.
Your "rights" are no more tangible than anyone else's.

And which rights would those be? How is having the SAME rights as everyone else 'trumping' anyone else's rights? You really really need to come up with a better way of debating if you're going to make any kind of sense. Homophobes don't have a "right" to hate and force homosexuals out of ANY situation they're allowed to be in.

Your ignorance is showing and, as we all know, it's the one and only trait you've ever known.

[Viktor Renquist]

the_truth_be_told2006 wrote:

<quoted text>
Dude, being gay doesn't make you more "sensitive". Being gay doesn't make you more "enlightened". Being gay doesn't make you "knowledgeable".
Being gay means that you like to stick things in your butt. That's about it. Since we hava a complete failure as president, gay may get to roam freely in the military, at great expense to the moral and profeciency of the fighting force, but you should never expect respect nor acceptance for your deviance. The reprocussions will outdistance the gains you think you may make.

Neither does being heterosexual, thus I am neither sensitive or enlightened either

I am, however, knowledgable

Since almost every other western nation has integrated gay men and lesbians into their force structures without significant difficulties and combat performance seems undiminished, why are you assuming that the US wont be able to achieve the same

Are you suggesting the US military isnt as efficient or effective as the UK, Australia, NZ, France, Germany etc etc

[Dasein9]

McMike wrote:

<quoted text>
And which rights would those be? How is having the SAME rights as everyone else 'trumping' anyone else's rights? You really really need to come up with a better way of debating if you're going to make any kind of sense. Homophobes don't have a "right" to hate and force homosexuals out of ANY situation they're allowed to be in.
Your ignorance is showing and, as we all know, it's the one and only trait you've ever known.

I do believe he's under the impression that straight people have the right to kill us.

But then, he also seems to be under the impression that US military personnel are so weak and squeamish that showering with a gay person would be too much for them.

[Raychel Roo]

Miyamoto Musashi wrote:

<quoted text>
You'll have a helluva time convincing me that "ACT UP!" standing in front of TV cameras in the seventies threatening and then accomplishing the intentional infection of heterosexuals wasn't because they were hetero.
In recent history alone, gays have much more blood on their foul, conspiratorial hands than vice versa... A simple truth people generally avoid in their attempts to legitimize a lifestyle repugnant to 98% of mankind.

At least a half million homosexuals were exterminated by heterosexuals in Nazi Germany, and the count may be as high as four million. Therefore I win this argument by a huge body count.

Next.

[Love killing]

So unlike all the other murders this one was hateful? Murder is Murder!

[Raychel Roo]

Miyamoto Musashi wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you should be addressing "Raychel", who wishes to emotionalize the board by generalizing about how many gays are killed because they are gay. It couldn't be simply that the ones killed were simply pricks...
"Hundreds of millions"... Hey, that sounds like a good number to go to camp.

In case you are worried, hate crime legislation only applies to homosexuals who were killed BECAUSE they are homosexuals. If a homosexual is killed just because they're a "prick" then the legislation doesn't apply.

Breathe easy now.

[Raychel Roo]

Love killing wrote:

So unlike all the other murders this one was hateful? Murder is Murder!

As I just posted:

In case you are worried, hate crime legislation only applies to homosexuals who are killed BECAUSE they are homosexuals. If a homosexual is killed just because they're a "prick" then the legislation doesn't apply.

Breathe easy now.

Also, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that said person was killed because they were gay.