NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I have added you to MSN, so whenever you're on, I'll see you then.

I'm actually on now :D

I'm actually on now :D
Meh I can't log on. :confused: Keeps on throwing me off. And when it does let me on, it shows you as offline anyway.

The problem with "approving" gays in the military is that some soldiers would get a fair amount of sex and that would turn psychopathic hawks into love doves... :D

Why would anyone want to join the military anyway... I rather starve to death.

For the women of the board, how many of you would be uncomfortable living with men, showering with men, changing with men, basically being with men the whole time? I think a LOT of you would be uncomfortable.

At first, I'm sure I would. Just as I would be uncomfortable changing in front of any man or woman I didn't know. However, this is part of what training is for. If men and women in the military were not housed separately, people would get used to bunking/showering/etc. together pretty quickly - and would be used to it by the time basic was over.

True in a general sense, but let's take the military's argument one devil's advocate step further. Let's say you and your loved one are in combat, together, and are given an order to advance into hostile territory.

Would you keep your eyes ahead of you focused on your task, or would you be looking over your shoulder to ensure your loved on is ok? That moment of distraction which could lead to both of you being killed.[/qutoe]

And, if my training was proper, I would know that not being focused on what I was doing would be much more dangerous to both of us. Soldiers in the military already form close relationships. They may not be sexual, but they do love each other. And when someone in a platoon dies, most of the other soldiers mourn. But, when the shit hits the fan and combat starts, every soldier does his or her part. They are trained to do so. Mourning and such comes later.

[quote]Again, I don't think it's valid enough to be compelling, but I can sorta see the logic of it.

Only if the same logic applies to close friendships - which are also a form of love, or familial ties, or any other number of things that *could* be distracting.

Meh I can't log on. :confused: Keeps on throwing me off. And when it does let me on, it shows you as offline anyway.

ODD! Telegram me your screen name and I'll add it because I haven't received any notification of someone trying to add me.

Norway got gays in the army. That's why people tremble when they see our flag. :D

Had a discussion on this topic with my solider-aspiring friend the other day.

We discussed the reasoning for the law (policy?). He said that it exists to prevent any sort of distraction related to homosexual relations during critical times (i.e., one would be too focused on the people they favor sexually to properly accomplish tasks involved with others, or would be unwilling to go if they needed to split apart, etc.) I mentioned the Spartans, and how the fact that they had sexual relations with one another improved their fighting ethic and teamwork. He said that circumstances are much different nowadays, and that major differences back then included the fact that the soldiers were willing to engage in hand-to-hand combat without fear of death. Now, according to him, there's much more strategy and indirect forms of fighting occurring, so the whole sexual relations thing would cause too much of a distraction in today's military world.

I'm not really sure how credible his concerns are...Again, is having openly gay people in the military really a problem in other countries for any reasons?

I'm a Brit and Homosexuals are aloud in the armed forces ( the best in the world may I add). What difference does your sexuality make to your miliatry ability. Gays can Fight just as well as hetrosexuals. Gays can opperate tanks or navigate ships just as well as the hetrosexuals. It is just a stupid law and thank god that it is not imposed on the Brits.

I would like to raise another matter. This matter is to do with women not being alowed in the Infantry in the British Army neither Are they aloud in the Royal Marines of the Royal Navy. I myself agree with this law not as a predjudice but as a Military Tactician. I would like to hear your views on this matter.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS POST


Being in the military myself (and damn proud of it too), it pisses me off that there are jobs that I am disqualified for simply because of my gender. The closest I could ever dream of going to the front would be as a combat medic, and even then, for the most parts theyre stuck in the back waiting for the boys at the front to bring back the wounded to us. BUt at the same time, I do understand why woman arent allowed in some areas. Its still more emotional for a guy to see a woman injured and is more likely to stop and try to help her than he would do for a male counterpart. This distraction can be deadly for the everyone. I think eventually times will change.... but thats the thing. Time. Only 60 years ago were we even allowed to join the military officially outside of wartime. Look how far we've come. I think (and hope) it will be the same for gays. We as a society are still working on accepting them as "normal". Their status is still being worked into a nonissue. It upsets me knowing that my best friend, who also is serving with me, cannot be open about her relationship with her girlfriend. Why is it that these two have the possibility of being kicked out for loving each other the same way a man and a woman can but the kid in the dorm next to us can sleep with a married woman, get her pregnant and give her an STD and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Why did the kid who was caught smoking marijuana only given a paper reprimand and allowed to go on his merry way? There are a lot of injustices, especially in the military. We thrive off of tradition. Things will change in the military, but only once we as society have changed.

*snip*
Excellent first post. Welcome. :) A shame that they don't allow qualified women into combat, but as you said, society will first have to change before the Army does.

Yeah, but they're gay...

It's the whole bullshit military morale thing. Having gays will disrupt the good order of the men. Just like happened when they broke down segregated units, and allowed women to join...oh, wait, it didn't.

my I point out the spartans. They were encouraged to be gay. It helped them. Because they were fighting for there loved ones

my I point out the spartans. They were encouraged to be gay. It helped them. Because they were fighting for there loved ones


Exactly - they were some of the fiercest warriors ever.

my I point out the spartans. They were encouraged to be gay. It helped them. Because they were fighting for there loved ones

The Theban Sacred Band is an even better example. It was due in no small part to their heroics that crushed the myth of Spartan military supremacy. It took Philip and Alexander the Great to finally extinguish that elite unit of 254 men, I think. I saw the Lion monument in Greece.

holy crap i just read this thread, wow... i hae one statement. if you arent american get out. i dont care about your opinions if you dont eve belong to the country. i believe that gays shouldnt be allowed to be in the army. period.

holy crap i just read this thread, wow... i hae one statement. if you arent american get out. i dont care about your opinions if you dont eve belong to the country. i believe that gays shouldnt be allowed to be in the army. period.

Why?

holy crap i just read this thread, wow... i hae one statement. if you arent american get out. i dont care about your opinions if you dont eve belong to the country. i believe that gays shouldnt be allowed to be in the army. period.


Well, I had disagreed but...wtih a well thought out argument like that my opinion has been altered.

holy crap i just read this thread, wow... i hae one statement. if you arent american get out. i dont care about your opinions if you dont eve belong to the country. i believe that gays shouldnt be allowed to be in the army. period.

The hell are you rambling about? We are perfectly justified in being here. Oh, and why should homosexuals not be in the military? What reason is there?

The hell are you rambling about? We are perfectly justified in being here. Oh, and why should homosexuals not be in the military? What reason is there?

Because of a strong urge to legislate morality in the US...

if you arent american get out. i dont care about your opinions if you dont eve belong to the country.


That's right, Puertoguay doesn't like you so all you non americans, get off the interweb.

That's right, Puertoguay doesn't like you so all you non americans, get off the interweb.

Never! We've been on the internet for more than three years. We demand squatters rights!

If someone believes that gay guys would be too distracted by the guys they think are cute to do their jobs, do they feel that way about the women in the military too? Keeping your sexuality a secret doesn't stop you from finding other people attractive. People can be distracted by good looking people whether they are open about their sexuality or not.

By the way, i'm from Canada, but the United States doesn't rule this website or the internet, i'll respond where i damn well please.

By the way, i'm from Canada, but the United States doesn't rule this website or the internet, i'll respond where i damn well please.
Sadly, the US pretty much does own the Internet.

Sadly, the US pretty much does own the Internet.
That's becasue it was first a method of communication within the U.S. government and military. It was made public after then Vice-President Al Gore convinced the government to make it so. (The amazing part is that when he said that in his campaign, it actually hurt his numbers, because people thought he was lying. :D )

Incidentally, I do think that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is crap. All people are created equal. This is supposed to be the land of the free! Does anyone remember that? It doesn't seem like it anymore...

They especially shouldn't be keeping gays out of the military now, when the military is stretched so thin across the world, that, not only have they called in the reserves and sent the National Guard overseas (which is not supposed to happen), but additionally, the government actually opened up a website looking for organisers of another draft (though it was quickly closed after it hit the news and sparked public outrage). When we're stretched that thinly, it is not the time. There is never a time. Because freedom is priceless...

They especially shouldn't be keeping gays out of the military now, when the military is stretched so thin across the world, that, not only have they called in the reserves and sent the National Guard overseas (which is not supposed to happen), but additionally, the government actually opened up a website looking for organisers of another draft (though it was quickly closed after it hit the news and sparked public outrage). When we're stretched that thinly, it is not the time. There is never a time. Because freedom is priceless...

What you are suggesting is that the politicians who wage war would actually have to bend their rigid and outdated morality in order to accomodate that war.

And that, my friend, is just crazy talk....

Too many darn posts to read.

I am a retired military officer and gay. Currently, "Don't ask, don't tell" is now unofficially, "Don't ask, don't tell, and don't pursue." Boiled down to it's essence it means it can be suspected that you are gay, heck it can even be KNOWN that you are gay, but MOST COs are not going to pursue discharges for homosexual Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Previous to "Don't ask, don't tell" homosexuals were pursued and driven out of the military regularly through "sting" operations. "Don't ask, don't tell" provided a barrier to CID, AFOSI, and NIS actually running sting operations with the object of finding and discharging homosexuals. It did not decriminalize homosexual conduct. It did decriminalize being homosexual as long as you kept it to yourself. As far as steps go to fully legalizing gays in the military, DADT would be called baby steps, but it was a lot better than what existed at the time.

Back before DADT, ALL homosexuals received either Dishonorable or General (under less than honorable conditions) discharges.

Under DADT only Officers receive, as a matter of course, Dishonorable discharges. Enlisted personnel receive General or Honorable discharges.

Now, it is really rare a gay servicemember discharged for homosexual conduct receives anything less than an Honorable Discharge unless their conduct is egregious.

I didn't get caught...some of my colleagues did.

I think that DADT will soon be a thing of the past. I also think that gays will soon be allowed to serve openly. Why? Recruiting and retention are at all time lows (especially in the US Army), enough so that the services are lowering recruiting quotas to give the impression that recruiting is still going strong.

Once this happens the UCMJ must be changed to reflect the new realities. This means applying conduct rules equally to people of all sexual orientations.

It will take about a generation of new servicemembers to get adjusted to the new culture. But the kids of today are a heck of a lot more open minded than my generation.

In my mind, anyone who wants to serve their country in the military and are of good character, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed to do so.

"They wanna fight, let 'em fight. Cos I aint fightin'! I wouldn't give a fuck if I saw a Russian tank rolling down Flatbush Avenue. I aint shooting nobody. So call me a faggot! At the end of the war, I'll be the faggot with two legs, thank you." - Chris Rock.

Gay people don't shoot others, anyway.

What the army needs is a platoon of butch lesbians. Not sugary, porn-for-straight-dudes lesbians, but hardcore, flannel-wearing, truck-driving, bull dykes.

Those ladies don't mess around. They're smart, tough, and don't take any shit.

But there's no forcing them into a closet, so alas, no dice.

Rticlce 125-Sodomy

Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

This is the text of Article 125. Now punishment varies depending on circumstances.

According to most literal definitions of "sodomy" it includes any sexual contact involving penetration by one person of another other than phallus-in-vagina. So if you go by that, straight soldiers ought to be discharged for getting blowjobs (no pun intended). Several US states have laws which criminalise sodomy that-- by their wording-- could be used to prosecute a straight guy for having anal sex with his wife. It really strikes me as funny, how boned (pun intended) the patchwork legal culture is in the US.
Anyway, more to the issue of gays & lesbians in the US military, well every rationale I've heard for the discriminatory policies has been silly and specious. And they always make me think back to the Sacred Band of Thebes in ancient Greece, which actually encouraged (if not required) every soldier to 'fraternise' with one of his fellow soldiers, and then the two of them would be side-by-side in battle, and they were considered among the most formidable military units of antiquity because men fighting alongside their lovers were far less likely to break ranks. If you turned and ran, it was more than 'just' a fellow soldier, more than a friend, you were letting down and possibly letting die.

On a more frivolous note, I find it unfortunate that so many restrictions seem to be imposed on soldiers' sexuality because hot damn, the military seems to have a lot of hot guys in it :D What with the muscles and the haircuts and the giving orders/taking orders, and the fatigues can fit quite nicely... ..... pardon me, I need to go ogle my C:\my_documents\pictures\hot_army_boys directory now!

In the Gay Street Militia's army

:sniper:
+ :mp5:
_________
:fluffle:

muuah! :D

On a more frivolous note, I find it unfortunate that so many restrictions seem to be imposed on soldiers' sexuality because hot damn, the military seems to have a lot of hot guys in it :D What with the muscles and the haircuts and the giving orders/taking orders, and the fatigues can fit quite nicely... ..... pardon me, I need to go ogle my C:\my_documents\pictures\hot_army_boys directory now!

In the Gay Street Militia's army

:sniper:
+ :mp5:
_________
:fluffle:

muuah! :D


RAWR!!! I love a man in uniform...of course I love a man out of uniform more <g>.

Well, as a Gay man, and political activist...here is the real deal. When hets are told they must spend their entire service celibate, THEN maybe the "being str8" is different than "engaging in hetero activity" would make sense. It's all nothing but heterosexual supremacist right wing fascism...AKA the theocracy of the united states. Ummm, wanna invade those nasty oppresive religious Talibans while at the same time turning the USA into one of its won...makes sense..lol

R.

I am a retired military officer and gay. Currently, "Don't ask, don't tell" is now unofficially, "Don't ask, don't tell, and don't pursue." Boiled down to it's essence it means it can be suspected that you are gay, heck it can even be KNOWN that you are gay, but MOST COs are not going to pursue discharges for homosexual Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

All it takes is one person getting upset about it - one CO. Once the paperwork is in, it's going through.

Under DADT only Officers receive, as a matter of course, Dishonorable discharges. Enlisted personnel receive General or Honorable discharges.

Now, it is really rare a gay servicemember discharged for homosexual conduct receives anything less than an Honorable Discharge unless their conduct is egregious.

I don't buy that. I have met a man working at the Georgia General Assembly who would tell a different story. He was a good serviceman (although, as far as I know, not an officer) - recognized for it. He didn't commit any "egregious" actions. It simply got out that he was gay. He was dishonorably discharged. He searched for a job for quite a while, getting very desperate. Finally, he contacted his state senator to see if there was anything at all she could do for him. Luckily, she didn't turn him away. She didn't have much pull with the military, so she gave him a job instead. He works in her office.

The man did *nothing* wrong, and was honorably serving his country. They found out he was gay and damn near ruined his entire life.

In my mind, anyone who wants to serve their country in the military and are of good character, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed to do so.

Indeed.

All it takes is one person getting upset about it - one CO. Once the paperwork is in, it's going through.

I know. I'm not defending the inanity of DADT, or even the current wisdom on the subject.


I don't buy that. I have met a man working at the Georgia General Assembly who would tell a different story. He was a good serviceman (although, as far as I know, not an officer) - recognized for it. He didn't commit any "egregious" actions. It simply got out that he was gay. He was dishonorably discharged. He searched for a job for quite a while, getting very desperate. Finally, he contacted his state senator to see if there was anything at all she could do for him. Luckily, she didn't turn him away. She didn't have much pull with the military, so she gave him a job instead. He works in her office.

That's the danger with having a regulation interpreted different ways by different officers. I am saying how it is SUPPOSED to work. That's why I support the Congress dropping DADT and making it legal for gays to serve openly in the military.

Then the culture has to be changed from the inside out. The UCMJ will need to be amended to make the rules the same for both heterosexuals and gays. This also means local and service specific regulations must come into line. There is NO BUREACRACY like a military bureacracy. That will take a generation and frankly the distance of time. That's reality.

Trust me, I suffered a lot. Keeping my indiscretions at least 100 miles from the flagpole and never admitting to lovers I was in the military.

The key here is making the rules the same for all sexual orientations.

Who else thinks the don't ask dont tell law is crap and that we should allow decent gay guys that want to go to the armed forces to serve their country or to better themselfs juts like straight people, I mean its the 21st century and I can't believe its still this way...look at Canada, England, France and Holland they all allow gays in the military and they are fine. Why should gay guys lie about who they are or be afraid to answer truthfully to questions when asked, from fellow soldiers for example. Who else thinks its time to change this old law that really does not work.
So what if it is the 21'st century?
OMG Cliche.

Who else thinks the don't ask dont tell law is crap and that we should allow decent gay guys that want to go to the armed forces to serve their country or to better themselfs juts like straight people, I mean its the 21st century and I can't believe its still this way...look at Canada, England, France and Holland they all allow gays in the military and they are fine. Why should gay guys lie about who they are or be afraid to answer truthfully to questions when asked, from fellow soldiers for example. Who else thinks its time to change this old law that really does not work.

I have always thought the US missed a great opportunity with gays in the military. I think we should have a special platoon of gays. I mean it! We'd even call them "Fighting Airborn Gay Specialists" - or F.A.G.S. and make their class A uniformes fashionably fluffy and bright.

Here's the good part and why I think it would be brilliant; We'd take the FAGS and train them to be the toughest, meanest, baddest, whoop ass platoon that ever walked the earth. These guys would be tough as nails highly trained ass kickin machines. They could make babies cry from 100 yards without making a noise. Badd ass mothafukas.

Then - when some nation pisses us off - we send in the FAGS and they WHOOP THE LIVING SHIT out of everything that gets in their way.

Talk about demoralizing to the enemy! Particularly religious fanatics! If the FAGS went in and laid waste to everything in sight then the enemy would think twice when we threatened to send in our 'more manly' straight soldiers.

All joking aside - it would be a greate way for homosexuals to demonstrate their competence in a way similar to the tuskeegee airmen. Maybe FAGS is inappropriate.. mabe we'd just call them the Quick Utility Expedition Extermination and Neutrilization Specialists...

Then change the legislators. Wasn't USA supposed to be a democracy?

Wasn't it originally framed as a "republic," though, which is technically different froma democracy? A democracy-- a demos cratia-- is rule by the people, however qualified or unqualified, with every voice carrying equal weight. Some of the old political philosophers actually derided democracy as "mob rule," the worst kind of non-authoritarian government. A republic, on the other hand, as exampled in Plato's writing, is ruled by the enlightened few, the philosopher king(s), who decides *for* the masses but whose judgement can always be trusted because they are great thinkers first and rulers second. Everyone else's life is best lived in knowing their place in society.

So... while the US is a poor example-- to say the least-- of "enlightened" rule, it does hold true to the republican notion of rule by an elite. It's mostly mistaken for a democracy by those poor suckers who heard someone mention the words "freedom" and "liberty" and assumed that they had some say in what their freedom and liberty were. :rolleyes: A democracy would be better characterised as a regime in which any free citizen (ie. not imprisoned or a slave) had an equal opportunity to be elected to government and to participate in the political decision-making on their own individual merit, rather than having to satisfy some minimum social-class requirement just to get their name on the ballot. Or truer to the idea, in an absolute democracy every citizen would be able to take part in the same forum for civic debate, and to vote on every government action. There wouldn't even be a need for elected government, just civil servants to administer the system. Unfortunately, in a democracy that democratic, the force of law becomes an instrument of public opinion, which can be fickle, and ignorant, and just plain wrong. Principled individuals who would try to effect change for the better would be ineffectual unless they could cause a large enough change of popular opinion.

The moral of the story is no, you don't have a real democracy. Which in some ways isn't SO bad, because a republic affords you more (relatively speaking) protection from mob rule than a real democracy would.

It just sucks when and if the leaders of your republic are hacks, bigots, fools, liars, thieves, and/or demagogues :D

They especially shouldn't be keeping gays out of the military now, when the military is stretched so thin across the world, that, not only have they called in the reserves and sent the National Guard overseas (which is not supposed to happen), but additionally, the government actually opened up a website looking for organisers of another draft (though it was quickly closed after it hit the news and sparked public outrage). When we're stretched that thinly, it is not the time. There is never a time. Because freedom is priceless...

Hmmm... more wars, requiring more troops, in a system that excludes gay people, = exclusive depletion of straight population pool, = proportionately more gay people left standing. = Swing in demographic power, = totalitarian rule by my gay bretheren. Why didn't I think of that sooner?

To war, heteros! Go, destroy the... uh... evil? yeah, that's the word-- destroy the EVIL enemy. Hmm? Oh-- no, it's alright, don't worry about us, it isn't so bad being left out. I guess we'll just have to stay behind... and take over the country! muahaha!

Plus there's the hilarity of being told gay people can't be in the military, and then being derided as weak or unpatriotic for not fighting. That bit of redneck logic is always great to have around; the marginalised feeling is totally worth the opportunity to poke fun at their reasoning skills.

gawd, the US is funny to watch... like a train-wreck, really... a terrible, hilarious train-wreck, leaking toxic chemicals that threaten to destroy us all. I'm giddy with the vapours. :-P

Anywho, I'll get off my latitudinal high horse now... :D

I have always thought the US missed a great opportunity with gays in the military. I think we should have a special platoon of gays. I mean it! We'd even call them "Fighting Airborn Gay Specialists" - or F.A.G.S. and make their class A uniformes fashionably fluffy and bright.

Here's the good part and why I think it would be brilliant; We'd take the FAGS and train them to be the toughest, meanest, baddest, whoop ass platoon that ever walked the earth. These guys would be tough as nails highly trained ass kickin machines. They could make babies cry from 100 yards without making a noise. Badd ass mothafukas.

Then - when some nation pisses us off - we send in the FAGS and they WHOOP THE LIVING SHIT out of everything that gets in their way.

Talk about demoralizing to the enemy! Particularly religious fanatics! If the FAGS went in and laid waste to everything in sight then the enemy would think twice when we threatened to send in our 'more manly' straight soldiers.

All joking aside - it would be a greate way for homosexuals to demonstrate their competence in a way similar to the tuskeegee airmen. Maybe FAGS is inappropriate.. mabe we'd just call them the Quick Utility Expedition Extermination and Neutrilization Specialists...

Oh, I like this one, we'll keep him :)

Actually, little known fact, several FAGS units were instrumental in the Gay Street Militia's annexing of our capital city and surrounding territory, which led to our independence as a homorepublic. We could never have broken away without our elite FAGS teams. Especially the Queen's 69th-- the "Pink Harbingers." The fundies got outta dodge in a hurry when they saw angry militant hot pink clad paratroopers raining from above.

Oh, I like this one, we'll keep him :)

Actually, little known fact, several FAGS units were instrumental in the Gay Street Militia's annexing of our capital city and surrounding territory, which led to our independence as a homorepublic. We could never have broken away without our elite FAGS teams. Especially the Queen's 69th-- the "Pink Harbingers." The fundies got outta dodge in a hurry when they saw angry militant hot pink clad paratroopers raining from above.

I have to say that the US Air Force Uniforms do need sprucing up. I grew bored of wearing the most dull, boring UGLY blue uniforms you could find. Not even a lively blue, just plain old dull blue.

And we're the US Air Force, why must we wear those hideous, olive drab camouflage uniforms?

They are currently wear testing some nice blue camouflage utilities. They even have a snazzy blue cravat with a nice black beret.

BTW, GSM...your FAG units...are the pants nice and tight? Snug in the right places? ;)

There is no law, gays are aloud in the army, but some of the right wing soldiers might pick on them.
Very true. Unfortunatly, there is very little that the army can do about curbing this behavior.

I have to say that the US Air Force Uniforms do need sprucing up. I grew bored of wearing the most dull, boring UGLY blue uniforms you could find. Not even a lively blue, just plain old dull blue.

And we're the US Air Force, why must we wear those hideous, olive drab camouflage uniforms?

They are currently wear testing some nice blue camouflage utilities. They even have a snazzy blue cravat with a nice black beret.

BTW, GSM...your FAG units...are the pants nice and tight? Snug in the right places? ;)

Another little-known fact, every member of the GSM's military has a personal tailor/seamstress who keeps their uniforms fitting just right. It's the nation's second largest employer (right after the military). Outsiders dismiss it as an inefficient government "make-work" project but those employed love their work. All day, cupping and tugging, measuring and stitching.

Our military is actually among the most formidable in my region. In battle they're ruthless, we whip 'em up into a frenzy by requiring them to watch home videos from their childhood and watch news broadcasts that single out stories of gay-bashings in other, less civilised countries. And in peacetime we keep them happy with nicely acquitted barracks and a *very* liberal fraternisation policy, and fit with good food, lots of exercise, and a very liberal fraternisation policy. LOL :D Slightly less liberal since the 212th Special Light Utility Troop brigade got blitzed on low-calorie martinis and gang-shagged their barracks to the ground, but still very liberal nonetheless.

Another little-known fact, every member of the GSM's military has a personal tailor/seamstress who keeps their uniforms fitting just right. It's the nation's second largest employer (right after the military). Outsiders dismiss it as an inefficient government "make-work" project but those employed love their work. All day, cupping and tugging, measuring and stitching.

Our military is actually among the most formidable in my region. In battle they're ruthless, we whip 'em up into a frenzy by requiring them to watch home videos from their childhood and watch news broadcasts that single out stories of gay-bashings in other, less civilised countries. And in peacetime we keep them happy with nicely acquitted barracks and a *very* liberal fraternisation policy, and fit with good food, lots of exercise, and a very liberal fraternisation policy. LOL :D Slightly less liberal since the 212th Special Light Utility Troop brigade got blitzed on low-calorie martinis and gang-shagged their barracks to the ground, but still very liberal nonetheless.

<smile>

Oh, I do like you...a lot. The SLUT brigade? ;)

LOL. Thank you for lightening up the topic and making me smile. Where in Eastern Canada are you?

Very true. Unfortunatly, there is very little that the army can do about curbing this behavior.
There is plenty they can do ... treat it like any other sexual discrimination case or harsher.

Make it clear that this behavior is unacceptable

<smile>

Oh, I do like you...a lot. The SLUT brigade? ;)

LOL. Thank you for lightening up the topic and making me smile. Where in Eastern Canada are you?

oh, 'roundabouts the middle-- central Eastern Canada, if you will. HAH! Gotta find me to bomb me and snuff out the militia and prevent the revolution! heh. I'm in New Brunswick. I don't generally get more specific than that until I find out whether or not people know where NB is :-P

oh, 'roundabouts the middle-- central Eastern Canada, if you will. HAH! Gotta find me to bomb me and snuff out the militia and prevent the revolution! heh. I'm in New Brunswick. I don't generally get more specific than that until I find out whether or not people know where NB is :-P

New Brunswick, East of Maine (USA), North of the Bay of Fundy and Nova Scotia, and west of Prince Edward Island. If you go much further east you will have a nice swim in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

I know this as I have travelled extensively in the northeastern United States. Alas, the only Canadian Provinces I have been in are; Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.

Oh, yes...your Provincial Capital is Fredericton.

Not bad for a Yank?

Fun Fact: Gays Are Allowed In The Army, Just So Long As They Do Not Tell Anyone They Are Gay Or Do Not Encage In Any Gay-sexual Activity!

anyone who's a citizen of a country, and wishes to fight on the armed forces of that nation, should have the absolute right to do so without fear of being harassed or kicked out of the army, either because of their skin colour, ethnic group, what they believe in, and especially in this case what their sexual orientation is.

the US army's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is complete bullcrap. how dare they tell you to die for your country when you can't even be yourself. and especially when the US army, for the most part, fights/fought for civil liberties, theres some hypocrisy for you right there.

plus, there are many nations in the world where gays/lesbians can freely join and not be persecuted by authorities because of their sexual orientations. and many of these nations have had this for going on for many years and nothing chaotic has ensued thus far. so the US army has absolutely no excuse to not let gays/lesbians be who they want to be and fight for their country.

What nearly all of the posters are missing is the fact that the military is NOT bound by the same laws and constitution of the US citizens. The reason we have the dont ask dont tell policy is for unit cohesion. now, this expressly states that gays ARE allowed in the military. they are not to tell anyone about their sexual orientation, nor are they allowed to engage in homesexual activities. To the military, they are no different that mr and mrs smith.

If people are uncomfortable with a gay member of their unit, then it will negatively impact unit cohesion. it doesnt matter if they are right or wrong, people will die because of it. the military follows different rules than the rest of the US, and as such can act in the best interest of the military members. Thats keeping them alive. If that takes gays keeping quiet, so be it.

Thats my opinion on the MILITARY. for the civilian world, its a whole nother story.

You know what happens when a straight soldier goes to war? He family or girlfriend can join a lot of groups for support. When the soldier comes back, they can live on post with their family.

But if you are gay you can't do those things because of "don't ask don't tell".

There is not reason gays should not allowed to be open in the military. They say it will hurt unit cohesion and that when they are downrange they will be a distraction.

But these reasons are the same as those given for desegregation of the military and the inclusion of women in the military. It is also proven false by the fact that one of the greatest military forces in the history of the world, the army of Alexander the Great, had openly gay people in. History has other examples of gay soldiers serving while open.

Its really not that big of a deal if they were open and the world would not fall apart.

history isnt relevant here. In ancient times it was socially acceptable. soldiers werent disturbed by it.
Now, many are. and they feel strongly against it. this makes unit cohesion an issue.

Many soldiers did not like blacks, still don't. Many don't think women should be in the military. But hey we don't listen to them. To say that the reason something is wrong is because we think its wrong is incredibly wrong.

Fun Fact: Gays Are Allowed In The Army, Just So Long As They Do Not Tell Anyone They Are Gay Or Do Not Encage In Any Gay-sexual Activity!

Fun Fact #2: Not every word in a sentence has to start with a capital letter!

history isnt relevant here. In ancient times it was socially acceptable. soldiers werent disturbed by it.
Now, many are. and they feel strongly against it. this makes unit cohesion an issue.

That argument is pure hocus-pocus, son.

It's been trotted out for the better part of 50 years because stodgy old Generals were paranoid about sexual activity from promiscuous gays, forget the fact that the sentiment is rubbish. The study that produced the "unit cohesion" argument has been thoroughly invalidated.

A soldier/sailor/Marine/airman will do what they are trained to do in moments of crisis due to intense training and they will do this without thinking of outside factors.

Oh, and history IS RELEVANT. For without it, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. The soldiering business for the infantryman has not changed to a greater degree in principle or execution. No professional soldier should ever excuse seeing a brother soldier as inferior due to his or her taste in who they share their bed with, because at the sharp end none of the arguments presented here by those who oppose allowing gays in the military matter a tinker's damn. All that matters is that your lives are in each others hands.

It's no Gay in our Holy Country, we sodomised them.

I believe the danger having Gay in the army is a contagious fear. Imagine they get used to it (I mean the non gay soldier)... How would they have kids when on leave? Some ladies find it a bit painful and reject sodomy, you know.

An army is very racist. Gay, like black people, should be admitted with Jew and Irish people to serve the front line. Who else would accept to be there?
These minorities are a pain in the.. neck, let them be in the army for the sake of experimentation, let pacifists serve in laboratories for the sake of animal activists (another minority?).

Let us pray, brothers, for all our soldiers volunteering in being kill in the name of Al... hm the Almighty God... Amen


The High Priest
- Not Gay -

What?

Fun Fact #2: Not every word in a sentence has to start with a capital letter!

Fun Fact #3: if you try to put something entirely in capitals it comes out with the first letter of every word capitalised!

Fun Fact #3: if you try to put something entirely in capitals it comes out with the first letter of every word capitalised!

Fun Fact #4: I learned something new today.

I can go back to bed now?

Fun Fact: Gays Are Allowed In The Army, Just So Long As They Do Not Tell Anyone They Are Gay Or Do Not Encage In Any Gay-sexual Activity!
As long as that rule is applied to Strait people not telling anyone they are strait or do not engage in any strait sexual activity at least it is fair ... as well as unreasonable

history isnt relevant here. In ancient times it was socially acceptable. soldiers werent disturbed by it.
Now, many are. and they feel strongly against it. this makes unit cohesion an issue.

Easy solution: Throw the pussies out.
If some men can't handle the idea of homosexuals, how well do you think they'll fare when shot at?

Easy solution: Throw the pussies out.
If some men can't handle the idea of homosexuals, how well do you think they'll fare when shot at?
No kidding ... Suck it the hell up

But these reasons are the same as those given for desegregation of the military and the inclusion of women in the military. It is also proven false by the fact that one of the greatest military forces in the history of the world, the army of Alexander the Great, had openly gay people in. History has other examples of gay soldiers serving while open.

Spartan units before the time of Alexander were actively encouraging in-unit homosexual relationships. By pairing two soldiers together, it was believed that there would be no stronger bond in battle than one of love.

No kidding ... Suck it the hell up
And take it like a man ;)

And take it like a man ;)
Or take it from a man :D

Easy solution: Throw the pussies out.
If some men can't handle the idea of homosexuals, how well do you think they'll fare when shot at?

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

Why punish the good guys who want to serve honorably while at the same time pandering to the small-minded monkeys who can't handle the fact that the guy next to them has a different idea of romantic love? Seems kinda backwards to me.

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

Why punish the good guys who want to serve honorably while at the same time pandering to the small-minded monkeys who can't handle the fact that the guy next to them has a different idea of romantic love? Seems kinda backwards to me.
Probably because the generals and other old dinosaurs who control the military machine are also parochial, small-minded monkeys who can't handle the fact that the guy next door might have a different idea of romantic love.

But, really, I don't these guys think gays can fall in love. They're probably the same bunch who reduce "homosexuality" to the "sexuality" part of the word and forget the rest.

Probably because the generals and other old dinosaurs who control the military machine are also parochial, small-minded monkeys who can't handle the fact that the guy next door might have a different idea of romantic love.

But, really, I don't these guys think gays can fall in love. They're probably the same bunch who reduce "homosexuality" to the "sexuality" part of the word and forget the rest.

*sigh* You're right. I know you're right.

I just have this semi-obnoxious desire to think that the world is not as f---ed up as it really is...

*sigh* You're right. I know you're right.

I just have this semi-obnoxious desire to think that the world is not as f---ed up as it really is...
Sorry for bursting your bubble of idealist naiveté :p

is that homophobia remains among the last forms of bigotry that are tacitly sanctioned within Western society.
Racism has always been wrong yet today we recognise that it was and is wrong, and we deny its legitimacy-- we don't pander to modern-day racists and their irrational biases.
Sexism has always been wrong yet today we recognise that it was and is wrong, and we deny its legitimacy-- we don't pander to modern-day sexists and their irrational biases.
And homophobia has always been wrong, too. Not everyone recognises it-- as many didn't recognise racism and sexism are wrong, and resisted progress when the tide began to turn against them-- and so many continue to defend its legitimacy, and those in power continue to pander to modern-day homophobes and their irrational biases.
History will look back on them all with equal disdain and ask "how could they have accepted one kind of irrational hate as being stupid and evil, and yet clung so fiercely to another? Made excuses for some, long after others were declared inexcusable? Opposed Bigot #1's hatred and prosecuted Bigot #2's hatred and illigitimated Bigot #3's hatred and yet allowed, supported and validated Bigot #4's hatred?"
"It's alright because it's less disruptive to the troops" or is not a valid argument. Because at one time-- and indeed to this day, for some-- the presence of blacks, and women, and any number of "others" in their midst would have been "disruptive" for some (if not all) the troops. But we stopped pandering to those prejudices and their irrational biases, stopped letting those bigotries dictate who could serve alongside them and who couldn't. And they had to get over it. We required them to grow... to outgrow their narrow-mindedness. We ordered them to adapt as our sensibilities became more enlightened, and like good soldiers most of them followed orders. They will do so again, unless one thinks that gays are the deal-breaker. And if our presence is enough to turn our guardians insubordinate, then it says little for their character or their worthiness to fight for all their fellow citizens.
And "it's alright because they're held to a different standard" is not a valid argument. Because then all you have to do is find some excuse-- "oh, well, we're the military, your rules don't apply to us" / "oh, well, we're the church, your rules don't apply to us" / "oh, well, we're such-'n-such political party, your rules don't apply to us"-- and next thing you know, *everybody* belongs to some group or another that considers itself above the law. Saying that it's okay for Person A to discriminate but not Person B, because Person A needs/wants an exception, because Person A has chosen a career or a set of beliefs that makes it okay, leads to everyone eventually looking for some way to be Person A. And that's how double standards can lead to people thinking they're above the law.
And besides the historical or logical arguments, there's the one that I think has a certain moral flavour to it. IF the military of any nation is to be expected to cherish that nation's way of life enough to protect it with their lives, how can its troops not be held up to all of the nation's standards? How can you tell him he's fighting for justice and equality, and then practice-- or worse yet allow him to practice-- injustice and inequality? How can you ask her to risk her life for freedom, and then tell her that somone who would be her fellow in arms is not free to do so? Soldiers ought to exemplify (or at the very least adhere to) the best values of the community they are assigned to protect; otherwise their incentive to protect it becomes little more than monetary compensation, and they become little more than state-owned whores with guns. If no one else in the society can be expected to challenge themselves, to overcome their bigotry and make their nation a better, freer place, then its guardians should still be expected to.

(btw, Terioamo, seized on your post as an opportunity to elaborate on your point... just so's ya don't think I'm "calling you" on something opposite to what you were actually saying :) )

Many soldiers did not like blacks, still don't. Many don't think women should be in the military. But hey we don't listen to them. To say that the reason something is wrong is because we think its wrong is incredibly wrong.

Besides, what could be gayer than war? A bunch of grown men launching exploding dicks at eachother? Homo-freakin-sexual! :p