Gaylord
02-12-10, 19:01
A U.S judge has cause outrage by claiming that gay men should be banned from serving in the military but lesbians should be permitted – so their male colleagues can “convert” them.
Joe Rehyansky, a magistrate and former district attorney, made the controversial remarks in an article published on a conservative website called The Daily Caller.
Rehvansky’s argument against gay men being permitted to serve centres mainly around their innate inability to control themselves in the showers.
“Now back to that communal shower. It’s no secret that men are generally much more susceptible to sexual arousal through visual stimuli than are most women. Many gays will deny that this is the case with them, but why then is the Internet saturated with gay porn? ”
He goes on to write, “Shouldn't’t the overwhelmingly straight warriors who answer their county’s call be spared the indignity of showering with other men who achieve lascivious = (Given to or expressing lust) enjoyment from the sight of those lithe naked bodies, and who may be tempted to seek more than the view? They are, after all, guys.
“If a Constitutional right to privacy that guarantees access to abortionists can be summoned from thin air, certainly the prohibition against involuntary servitude should prevent unwilling heterosexual men from providing beefcake parades without their informed consent, at least penumbral.” = ( A partial shadow)
His final argument, which has generated the most controversy and has now been removed by the website administrators, was as follows: “My solution would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective ‘Broke Back,’ thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream.”
Does this strengthen the case for banning openly gay/lesbian people from serving in the military?
GL :confused::D
Joe Rehyansky, a magistrate and former district attorney, made the controversial remarks in an article published on a conservative website called The Daily Caller.
Rehvansky’s argument against gay men being permitted to serve centres mainly around their innate inability to control themselves in the showers.
“Now back to that communal shower. It’s no secret that men are generally much more susceptible to sexual arousal through visual stimuli than are most women. Many gays will deny that this is the case with them, but why then is the Internet saturated with gay porn? ”
He goes on to write, “Shouldn't’t the overwhelmingly straight warriors who answer their county’s call be spared the indignity of showering with other men who achieve lascivious = (Given to or expressing lust) enjoyment from the sight of those lithe naked bodies, and who may be tempted to seek more than the view? They are, after all, guys.
“If a Constitutional right to privacy that guarantees access to abortionists can be summoned from thin air, certainly the prohibition against involuntary servitude should prevent unwilling heterosexual men from providing beefcake parades without their informed consent, at least penumbral.” = ( A partial shadow)
His final argument, which has generated the most controversy and has now been removed by the website administrators, was as follows: “My solution would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective ‘Broke Back,’ thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream.”
Does this strengthen the case for banning openly gay/lesbian people from serving in the military?
GL :confused::D