GAY Top Marine: Gays can cause deaths via distraction

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
33,922
8,399
473
38
Oz
Marklar
25,442.40₥
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121407705.html

The Marine Corps' top general suggested Tuesday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could result in more casualties because their presence on the battlefield would pose "a distraction."
"When your life hangs on the line," said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, "you don't want anything distracting. . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' lives."
In an interview with newspaper and wire service reporters at the Pentagon, Amos was vague when pressed to clarify how the presence of gays would distract Marines during a firefight. But he cited a recent Defense Department survey in which a large percentage of Marine combat veterans predicted that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law would harm "unit cohesion" and their tight-knit training for war.
"So the Marines came back and they said, 'Look, anything that's going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,' " he said. "I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I'll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital . . . Marines are up there with no legs, none. We've got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs."





:waw:
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,365
430
41
42
Austin
Marklar
663.49₥
Top Marine: I am a homophobic asshole and I will attempt to cloud up the issue by implying a parallel exists between homosexual soldiers and ones without limbs lying in a hospital somewhere.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
Since women are not allowed on the front lines (for some reason) should gays be outlawed from the front lines/
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
41
Marklar
21,493.06₥
Only the twinks (since the rationalization is the ability to carry your comrade out from the line of fire)
that's not the rationale since it's well-known that there are some - very few, but some - hard core chicks out there that can carry as much a dude in combat

the rationale is that male instinct would take over and the guys would focus on saving the bitch rather than completing the mission. so in other words, completely ignoring all the bullshit we hear about being so fucking disciplined because apparently down home redneck "common sense" wins over logic every time

the other rationale is that you can't room dudes and chicks together and setting up separate berthing in a forward combat zone is tarded. if we just went to a unisex military this wouldn't be an issue but fuck, we still have to have PSAs telling servicemembers not to rape each other

edit: fyi: australian military has the same problem with servicemembers raping each other :fly:
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
So he can handle bullets raining down around him and explosions, but someone else's sexual preference is distracting?

Maybe the armed forces need to conduct some "live fire" training during a pride parade.
I guarantee those bears on Folsom street fair put themselves through more pain VOLUNTARILY than what you would see on the front line. :lol:

I would love to see a queen be a POW tortured to get information.

"Talk or I will turn up the current to your testicles!"

"Oh yes, please! I thought you were never going to stop with the foreplay!"