Well, one, according to Democrats, the war doesn't exist in the first place.

Two, why on earth should the armed forces be required to keep people whose sexual orientation requires them to side with, for example, repressive terrorist entity in which gays are regularly killed against a democratic and pluralistic country and government where they are not?

This was one of your more incoherent comments, but it’s nice to know you support gays being fired simply for being gay.

Not that I'm surprised.

I don't. I simply don't think there needs to be a law for it.

In this case, what I was pointing out is the fact that the "LGBT community" continues to prefer to ally itself with terrorist-supporting and anti-American groups, ironically against countries that have far more enlightened attitudes towards gays than the allied groups.

That should make the military at best suspicious -- especially given the fact that gay groups are almost universally anti-military.

Again, why should the military be forced to keep people whose sexual orientation requires them to support terrorist organizations, oppose our allies, and be anti-military?

Perhaps if gays could divorce themselves from leftist anti-military groups, this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

There’s so much wrong with that comment, I don’t even know where to begin.

1) Exactly what terrorist groups are LGBT people aligned with? I apparently missed that memo. (Let me guess, it’s the Democratic party)

2) You, then, support the firing of all gays in the military, because you (apparently) assume that they all gays (or, at least most) are terror-supporting people who can’t be trusted in the military. Even though, the folks fired are in an area where the military has admitted to being under staffed, and an area that is essential to national security.

I’m glad you’re not in power.

My dear Henry, queers are far more blatant than that. The Democrat Party isn't a terrorist group per se; it merely enables and protects them at every opportunity.

You, then, support the firing of all gays in the military, because you (apparently) assume that they all gays (or, at least most) are terror-supporting people who can’t be trusted in the military.

It's an ugly solution, yes; unfortunately, though, I don't believe the military can or should assume that gays can be trusted in national security positions.

Perhaps if gay groups were less anti-military, this wouldn't be a problem. But the simple fact of the matter is that gay groups have declared it necessary to homosexuality to be anti-military, mainly to please the leftist causes to which they have tied being gay.