NationStates Jolt Archive

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid

Well, no shit, Sherlock.

i doubt they've rationalised it that far. it's just plain old homophobia.

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions

You mean that people in the army are ready to kill people, and risk getting killed themselves, but the prospect of sharing a bed with a homosexual would put them of???

It probably feels it would cause anger and trouble withing the enlisted people in the armed forces just like was felt when they resisted letting blacks in the military. Eventually the military will get off its ass and end its continuing discriminatory practices.

Any opinions

So, when are you joining the Army?

So, when are you joining the Army?

How is that relevant?

It probably feels it would cause anger and trouble withing the enlisted people in the armed forces just like was felt when they resisted letting blacks in the military. Eventually the military will get off its ass and end its continuing discriminatory practices.

Will you sign up before or after they end discrimination against homosexuals?

How is that relevant?

Well, if you are not planning on joining the military you don't have a dog in this fight do you.

Well, if you are not planning on joining the military you don't have a dog in this fight do you.

I suppose you're one of those metrosexuals who believes if you're not a woman you can't have an opinion on abortion either.

Well, if you are not planning on joining the military you don't have a dog in this fight do you.

Yes.

Well, if you are not planning on joining the military you don't have a dog in this fight do you.

The black people that fought for their right to join the army but didn't join would have some rather nasty words for you.

How is that relevant?
Pancreas

Well, if you are not planning on joining the military you don't have a dog in this fight do you.If they fire cryptolinguists that speak arabic for being homosexual, then yes, we do. ;)

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions

It's probably just because they are allergic to different people.

I spit on the prospects of gays in the military,frankly I don't think its hmophobia, its indecency. The real thing to focus on here is that soldiers have enough to worry about and they don't need to worry about gettin hit on by some queer. These don't ask don't tell rules are just what the military needs to keep subjects like this from sturring up.

Will you sign up before or after they end discrimination against homosexuals?

You are correct. Who cares what they do because I myself have no interest in joining. That they are violating peoples civil rights by this policy of theirs... but I can't have an opinion right? So much for freedom of speech. Thank you for making it so clear. You can't criticize something unless you want to join the very thing you are criticizing. Amazing. Luckily you have no power over me and I will continue to criticize.

I spit on the prospects of gays in the military,frankly I don't think its hmophobia, its indecency. The real thing to focus on here is that soldiers have enough to worry about and they don't need to worry about gettin hit on by some queer. These don't ask don't tell rules are just what the military needs to keep subjects like this from sturring up.So we should kick women out of the military because there's too many hetero guys in it?

So, when are you joining the Army?
Does that mean I have to be a poltician to vote?

I spit on the prospects of gays in the military,frankly I don't think its hmophobia, its indecency. The real thing to focus on here is that soldiers have enough to worry about and they don't need to worry about gettin hit on by some queer. These don't ask don't tell rules are just what the military needs to keep subjects like this from sturring up.

Goddamn fags. Always buttfucking poor American manly-men. Ass-mongering Gucci-clad maggots. A straight mac ho man would never hit on a female or rape anyone. Only faggots do that.

well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever.

They just need to introduce butt armor.

So, when are you joining the Army?

So, when are you coming out of the closet?

So, when are you coming out of the closet?

That was so three days ago.

Uh..folks...the American military has accepted gays for quite a while now.

The official policy is "dont ask, dont tell".

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions

The Armed Forces do allow gay recruits now via the method of never asking recruits or soldiers about their coupling habits and preferences. However the gay recruits are not allowed to chat about being gay or be found somewhere having sex. "dont ask dont tell" the policy it is called.

Recruitment drop might have been a small part of Pentagon reasoning to disallow gays, but it has never been a main reason. The Army will not run out of soldiers simply because it has no volunteers. If the military ever absolutely needs more soldiers while fighting a war then the draft will provide what recruiters cannot.

I spit on the prospects of gays in the military,frankly I don't think its hmophobia, its indecency. The real thing to focus on here is that soldiers have enough to worry about and they don't need to worry about gettin hit on by some queer. These don't ask don't tell rules are just what the military needs to keep subjects like this from sturring up.

What this is, is nothing more than ignorance on the HIGHEST fucking level. Dude, I'm gay and I can tell you quite plainly that two-thirds of all straight-guys that I meet do not interest me in the least and (unlike you obviously) I know where the draw the line when someone tells me that they are straight (unless I'm drunk, but this is a different story).

Uh..folks...the American military has accepted gays for quite a while now.

The official policy is "dont ask, dont tell".

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions

I think I have a solution to your problem:
Stick the gay guys in the women's bunk.
The women will know that the guy is gay and it's pointless to hit on him(hopefully).
The guys won't have to deal with their own homophobia(wusses!)
And the gay guy is in a room with people that can't possibly attract him, same as everyone else.
Everyone wins!

I think I have a solution to your problem:
Stick the gay guys in the women's bunk.
The women will know that the guy is gay and it's pointless to hit on him(hopefully).
The guys won't have to deal with their own homophobia(wusses!)
And the gay guy is in a room with people that can't possibly attract him, same as everyone else.
Everyone wins!

Time to pretend to be gay. :p

Uh..folks...the American military has accepted gays for quite a while now.

The official policy is "dont ask, dont tell".

Ever since "dont ask, dont tell" was created the number of people kicked out of the army TRIPPLED! It doesn't work.

You are correct. Who cares what they do because I myself have no interest in joining. That they are violating peoples civil rights by this policy of theirs... but I can't have an opinion right? So much for freedom of speech. Thank you for making it so clear. You can't criticize something unless you want to join the very thing you are criticizing. Amazing. Luckily you have no power over me and I will continue to criticize.

I'm so glad you brought up civil rights. There is not "civil right" to be a member of the military. There is nothing in the Constitution or any Federal law that gives a person the “right” to join the military. The military excludes people who do not meet the standards that are set. Those standards include many factors including but not limited to physical and mental abilities, criminal record, drug use, etc.

So please, get of that Civil Rights soapbox.

Oh, and yes you do have a right to criticize but I have an equal right to question the motives of an individual who does so but has no interest in joining.

I'm so glad you brought up civil rights. There is not "civil right" to be a member of the military. There is nothing in the Constitution or any Federal law that gives a person the “right” to join the military. The military excludes people who do not meet the standards that are set. Those standards include many factors including but not limited to physical and mental abilities, criminal record, drug use, etc.

So please, get of that Civil Rights soapbox.

Oh, and yes you do have a right to criticize but I have an equal right to question the motives of an individual who does so but has no interest in joining.

If I understand it correctly, the US army would be the employer in this case, right? I'm pretty certain that there are laws, even in the US, that make it illegal for an employer to enquire about a future employees sexual preferences, and to fire the employee on account of his/her sexuality.

Just out of curiosity : Does (or did, as someone pointed out) this law apply to men only, or was it also directed against lesbians?

I don't see what the big deal is. Gays serve openly in the IDF, and it's considered one of the finest fighting forces in the world. So why can't it happen in the US? I thought we were supposed to be the biggest, baddest, kickassingest motherfuckers in the world, but we can't handle gays serving openly in the military. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Does that mean I have to be a poltician to vote?

If you are not planning to work for IBM do you care about the qualifications for employment with IBM? If you are not planning on joining the US military or the Canadian military, do you care about the qualifications for employment with them? If yes, why?

I don't see what the big deal is. Gays serve openly in the IDF, and it's considered one of the finest fighting forces in the world. So why can't it happen in the US? I thought we were supposed to be the biggest, baddest, kickassingest motherfuckers in the world, but we can't handle gays serving openly in the military. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

I guess some people don't want you to turn into the biggest, baddest, kickassingest fatherfuckers... :p ;)

If you are not planning to work for IBM do you care about the qualifications for employment with IBM? If you are not planning on joining the US military or the Canadian military, do you care about the qualifications for employment with them? If yes, why?

Yes to both, because I care about equality and fairness.

If you are not planning to work for IBM do you care about the qualifications for employment with IBM? If you are not planning on joining the US military or the Canadian military, do you care about the qualifications for employment with them? If yes, why?

Because you believe in fairness for all and solidarise with us poor folks working for IBM?

If you are not planning to work for IBM do you care about the qualifications for employment with IBM? If you are not planning on joining the US military or the Canadian military, do you care about the qualifications for employment with them? If yes, why?I do when it affects the security of the nation, and when we're tossing out folks who are experienced Arabic linguists when 1) we're already shorthanded and 2) we're involved in multiple wars in Arab speaking areas simply because they're gay then you're damn right I care.

I think I have a solution to your problem:

Phew. Good thing bisexuals don't really exist.

I do when it affects the security of the nation, and when we're tossing out folks who are experienced Arabic linguists when 1) we're already shorthanded and 2) we're involved in multiple wars in Arab speaking areas simply because they're gay then you're damn right I care.

One quick question Nazz. Have you ever served in the US military?

If you are not planning to work for IBM do you care about the qualifications for employment with IBM? If you are not planning on joining the US military or the Canadian military, do you care about the qualifications for employment with them? If yes, why?

A quaint old notion called justice.

One quick question Nazz. Have you ever served in the US military?Nope, but my tax money helps fund them, so I still get to be concerned over whether they're performing at peak capacity. You don't get to toss me out of the discussion that easily.

And besides, like I said--gays serve openly in other elite military corps. What's so different about American gays that they can't serve openly in ours? Are we just shittier than those other militaries?

Just out of curiosity : Does (or did, as someone pointed out) this law apply to men only, or was it also directed against lesbians?

I've seen men and women thrown out for being gay since I've been in the military -- 5-1/2 years.

If you are not planning to work for IBM do you care about the qualifications for employment with IBM? If you are not planning on joining the US military or the Canadian military, do you care about the qualifications for employment with them? If yes, why?

Because they fight for our civil rights and should therefore be able to enjoy them too?

Because they fight for our civil rights and should therefore be able to enjoy them too?

Do the employees of IBM qua employees of IBM fight for your civil rights?

Do the employees of IBM qua employees of IBM fight for your civil rights?

The pretentious use of latin does not distract me from the fact that you are responding to a crappy use of analogy, rather than my point.

If someone is risking his or her life to defend certain freedoms, why is that person not allowed to enjoy those freedoms?

Because they fight for our civil rights and should therefore be able to enjoy them too?

It would be nice, and in practice the protections of the Constitution are applied to us, but under Article I Section 8, Congress doesn't have to let that happen.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

Congress can set whatever rules for us it wants. If it wants to deny us the privileges of the Bill of Rights or any other part of the Constitution, only the voters and SCOTUS can stop them.

EDIT: For example, the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to military personnel, but Article 31 of the UCMJ makes an adequate (and broader) substitute.

a. No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.

b. No person subject to this chapter may interrogate or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected, and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

c. No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence is not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.

d. No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement, may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

Nope, but my tax money helps fund them, so I still get to be concerned over whether they're performing at peak capacity. You don't get to toss me out of the discussion that easily.


It is a question of moral. If you want the US military to perform at peak capacity, you must maintain high moral. Homosexuals in the US military are not accepted by most military members and (whether you accept it or not) having homosexuals in the US military can lower moral.


And besides, like I said--gays serve openly in other elite military corps. What's so different about American gays that they can't serve openly in ours? Are we just shittier than those other militaries?

Perhaps other cultures have a more open attitude toward homosexuality?

If you are not planning to work for IBM do you care about the qualifications for employment with IBM? If you are not planning on joining the US military or the Canadian military, do you care about the qualifications for employment with them? If yes, why?http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11723309&postcount=14

It is a question of moral. If you want the US military to perform at peak capacity, you must maintain high moral. Homosexuals in the US military are not accepted by most military members and (whether you accept it or not) having homosexuals in the US military can lower moral.It's morale, in this case (just to avoid unnecessary confusion).

I've seen men and women thrown out for being gay since I've been in the military -- 5-1/2 years.

Do you think homosexuals and lesbians should be alowed to serve in the US military?

Because they fight for our civil rights and should therefore be able to enjoy them too?

See my earlier post. There is no "cival right" to serve in the military.

Do you think homosexuals and lesbians should be alowed to serve in the US military?

Yep. Sure do.

It is a question of moral. If you want the US military to perform at peak capacity, you must maintain high moral. Homosexuals in the US military are not accepted by most military members and (whether you accept it or not) having homosexuals in the US military can lower moral.

I think you mean "morale" and the same argument was used to keep African-Americans out of the military, and then to keep them segregated. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now. And I would imagine that not being able to translate the plans that cost your fellow soldiers their lives because you tossed the gay guy who could translate them would be a bit more damaging to morale than having to serve with him.

It would be nice, and in practice the protections of the Constitution are applied to us, but under Article I Section 8, Congress doesn't have to let that happen.



Congress can set whatever rules for us it wants. If it wants to deny us the privileges of the Bill of Rights or any other part of the Constitution, only the voters and SCOTUS can stop them.

I don't know what to say to this. For me, this is disgusting, that a country can not guarantee the same civil rights to its soldiers that the general populace enjoys.

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions

Exacly what they said about blacks.

If you are not planning to work for IBM do you care about the qualifications for employment with IBM? If you are not planning on joining the US military or the Canadian military, do you care about the qualifications for employment with them? If yes, why?
I'm sorry, how did that answer my question?

It's morale, in this case (just to avoid unnecessary confusion).

OK

I don't know what to say to this. For me, this is disgusting, that a country can not guarantee the same civil rights to its soldiers that the general populace enjoys.
From a movie, but not entirely untrue:
We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it.

I'm also going to call bullshit on the morale argument, even though it is one of the official reasons. In units where we had a known homosexual, but who never said the words or got caught in the act, morale was never affected one way or the other.

It's a bogus argument that sounds real until it's put into practice.

From a movie, but not entirely untrue:
If memory serves, following Hackman's orders over Denzel Washington's would have resulted in a nuclear war in that movie. :p

If memory serves, following Hackman's orders over Denzel Washington's would have resulted in a nuclear war in that movie. :p

Also true, but it's also one of the worst submarine movies ever made. Or at least, one of the worst depictions of what life is like on a submarine. :p

Also true, but it's also one of the worst submarine movies ever made. Or at least, one of the worst depictions of what life is like on a submarine. :pA reworking of that quote also works well in classrooms:
We're here to learn about democracy, not practice it!

i doubt they've rationalised it that far. it's just plain old homophobia.

I think that you are mostly right, but probably you are pointing the fickle finger of homophobia towards the pentagon instead of at the GIs. From the pentagons viewpoint a soldier's sexuality is about as important as his hair color until it's presence harms the military ability or readiness to fight.This harm would include having a sexuality which a large majority of the other soldiers hated and despised, just as they were taught to do. And their fathers before them. It doesnt matter if the fear and hatred are misplaced, fears and hatred dont go away quickly. The problem is getting the rest of the GIs to not merely tolerate but to accept and respect homosexuals as equals and as officers. It isnt good enough to merely get the GIs to tolerate the man next to him while silently hating him. It isnt the Pentagon and politicians that need to quit hating homosexuals, it is the majority of guys who join the military who have to be indoctrinated into thinking that hanging out with homosexuals is a neat idea. These are they patriotic kids who just barely graduate high school by the skin of their teeth and who's career prospects suck, alot think that wars are and blowing shit up is cool. Deep inner city kids wanting out and kids from bumfuck Wyoming who want a way in to a city. You get these guys accept gays as just people and the pentagon wont care. The pentagon would proudly accept bow legged hairlipped devil worshipping glue sniffing moderator baiting unwashed skunk copulaters as soldiers if they were fierce loyal obedient fighters who could shoot as long as the other GIs could be reasonably made to accept and respect them .

Also on the plus side for humanity I would say that in the last twenty years somehow society has somehow staggered into a less hateful way of raising children that managed to cut the number of activity of loud viscious homophobes and racists considerably. Now a person is a homophobe of the worst imaginable magnitude and must hang his head in shame forever if he would admit to having ever uttered the word "faggot" wthin earshot of an obviously gay man. 30 years ago there is every chance that an openly gay man outside of metropolitan areas with gay communities would be occassionally beaten up without cause and certainly screwed with in other ways until he moved away into a gay community. Our children are much better and different than their parents. Theirs should be better still. It is a pretty good bet that openly gay men will be a part of the US armed forces in the next couple of decades, This despite the howling of the activists for it and because this generation of children is less filled with hate than the one before.

A reworking of that quote also works well in classrooms:
We're here to learn about democracy, not practice it!


Or NSG:

We're here to argue about democracy, not practice it!

The pentagon would proudly accept bow legged hairlipped devil worshipping glue sniffing moderator baiting unwashed skunk copulaters as soldiers if they were fierce loyal obedient fighters who could shoot.....

I'm in!

Perhaps other cultures have a more open attitude toward homosexuality?

Or maybe it's other people besides you who have the more open attitude.

Or perhaps Israel has a bunch of badass soldiers, and the US just can't compete.

Or maybe it's other people besides you who have the more open attitude.

Or perhaps Israel has a bunch of badass soldiers, and the US just can't compete.Israel has (or had) plenty of its own problems with how homosexuals are viewed and treated in the military. Yossi and Jagger is a pretty good depiction of that.

Israel has (or had) plenty of its own problems with how homosexuals are viewed and treated in the military. Yossi and Jagger is a pretty good depiction of that.

I guess that just leaves the other option, Celtlund's personal bias. When you think of what he is really saying with the morale argument, it's "I don't like gays, therefore allowing gays to serve in the military would make me unhappy, therefore I couldn't do my job as effectively, therefore we shouldn't allow gays in the military."

Israel also has a conscripted army. Perhaps they were having a rash of people claiming homosexuality to get out of army duty?

I guess that just leaves the other option, Celtlund's personal bias. When you think of what he is really saying with the morale argument, it's "I don't like gays, therefore allowing gays to serve in the military would make me unhappy, therefore I couldn't do my job as effectively, therefore we shouldn't allow gays in the military."Heheh. When my dad got drafted and stationed in Germany, one of his COs told him "We're not taking any n*ggers." Nowadays, I doubt he'd be able to get away with a statement like that. Funny how morale changes...

I think that you are mostly right, but probably you are pointing the fickle finger of homophobia towards the pentagon instead of at the GIs. From the pentagons viewpoint a soldier's sexuality is about as important as his hair color until it's presence harms the military ability or readiness to fight.This harm would include having a sexuality which a large majority of the other soldiers hated and despised, just as they were taught to do. And their fathers before them. It doesnt matter if the fear and hatred are misplaced, fears and hatred dont go away quickly. The problem is getting the rest of the GIs to not merely tolerate but to accept and respect homosexuals as equals and as officers. It isnt good enough to merely get the GIs to tolerate the man next to him while silently hating him. It isnt the Pentagon and politicians that need to quit hating homosexuals, it is the majority of guys who join the military who have to be indoctrinated into thinking that hanging out with homosexuals is a neat idea. These are they patriotic kids who just barely graduate high school by the skin of their teeth and who's career prospects suck, alot think that wars are and blowing shit up is cool. Deep inner city kids wanting out and kids from bumfuck Wyoming who want a way in to a city. You get these guys accept gays as just people and the pentagon wont care. The pentagon would proudly accept bow legged hairlipped devil worshipping glue sniffing moderator baiting unwashed skunk copulaters as soldiers if they were fierce loyal obedient fighters who could shoot as long as the other GIs could be reasonably made to accept and respect them .

Also on the plus side for humanity I would say that in the last twenty years somehow society has somehow staggered into a less hateful way of raising children that managed to cut the number of activity of loud viscious homophobes and racists considerably. Now a person is a homophobe of the worst imaginable magnitude and must hang his head in shame forever if he would admit to having ever uttered the word "faggot" wthin earshot of an obviously gay man. 30 years ago there is every chance that an openly gay man outside of metropolitan areas with gay communities would be occassionally beaten up without cause and certainly screwed with in other ways until he moved away into a gay community. Our children are much better and different than their parents. Theirs should be better still. It is a pretty good bet that openly gay men will be a part of the US armed forces in the next couple of decades, This despite the howling of the activists for it and because this generation of children is less filled with hate than the one before.

Well thought-out and well-articulated, but it doesn't hold water in reality. The pentagon has a perception of how soldiers and sailors will react if openly gay persons are allowed in military units but as I said earlier, I haven't seen a single instance of a "known" gay person having any effect on unit morale. (Assuming the person hasn't violated the DADT policy.)

Well thought-out and well-articulated, but it doesn't hold water in reality. The pentagon has a perception of how soldiers and sailors will react if openly gay persons are allowed in military units but as I said earlier, I haven't seen a single instance of a "known" gay person having any effect on unit morale. (Assuming the person hasn't violated the DADT policy.)

I see, And how exactly does your morale meter detect changes in morale and what are the units it measures morale in? Also I have to assume that there were changes in morale of those units which had openly gay soldiers. All units have ups and downs. I take it that the cause of any lower or higher morale in these units was isolated so as to ensure that the gay soldiers did not and could not dip or boost morale. Do lesbiens have this property in the same strength as gay men?

If what you say is true then the armed forces should immediately demand that homosexual soldiers be actively recruited with attractive enlistment perks and benefits. We need to have one homosexual placed in every unit ASAP for their almost godlike ability to buffer and mute peaks and valleys in morale.

I see, And how exactly does your morale meter detect changes in morale and what are the units it measures morale in? Also I have to assume that there were changes in morale of those units which had openly gay soldiers. All units have ups and downs. I take it that the cause of any lower or higher morale in these units was isolated so as to ensure that the gay soldiers did not and could not dip or boost morale. Do lesbiens have this property in the same strength as gay men?

If what you say is true then the armed forces should immediately demand that homosexual soldiers be actively recruited with attractive enlistment perks and benefits. We need to have one homosexual placed in every unit ASAP for their almost godlike ability to buffer and mute peaks and valleys in morale.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious here or trying to bait me, because in trying to ridicule a point of PERSONAL FUCKING OBSERVATION, you've made yourself sound like a blithering idiot.

I'm also going to call bullshit on the morale argument, even though it is one of the official reasons. In units where we had a known homosexual, but who never said the words or got caught in the act, morale was never affected one way or the other.

It's a bogus argument that sounds real until it's put into practice.

Celtlund doesn't seem to understand that the military (and the world in general) has changed since he joined up in the 60s. While some young people still have a problem with gay people, most don't give a rats ass one way or the other. And who joins the military? Young people join the military. It's the dried up old generals and administrators who should have retired years ago who have the problem with it. Any morale problem is largely in their outdated imaginations.

Celtlund doesn't seem to understand that the military (and the world in general) has changed since he joined up in the 60s. While some young people still have a problem with gay people, most don't give a rats ass one way or the other. And who joins the military? Young people join the military. It's the dried up old generals and administrators who should have retired years ago who have the problem with it. Any morale problem is largely in their outdated imaginations.

I agree 100%.

I'm not going to pretend to know the end-all answer to this question ...

But here's a thought.

If 4% of the male population of American male high school students have a homosexual orientation, and 4% of the male high school students have a homophobia aversion to serving with homosexuals and thus would choose to not serve in the military if open-homosexuals were allowed to enlist... what would be the overall increase (or decrease) of enlistment numbers if allowing homosexually oriented individuals to choose to enlist came to pass. Would those homosexually oriented people then choose to serve or choose to not serve so in significant numbers? Would the military lose a significant number of individuals that would have been easier to solicent to join if the homosexual question was never breached at all? Perhaps.

There is no reason to assume that allowing gays into the military would increase the total number of enlistees, whereas there is a possibility that allowing homosexuals to join the military would actually decrease enlistment quotas...


It's just a thought.

Until the society as a whole is ready for it (if ever) why bother? From a enlistment strategy point of view.

I'm not going to pretend to know the end-all answer to this question ...

But here's a thought.

If 4% of the male population of American male high school students have a homosexual orientation, and 4% of the male high school students have a homophobia aversion to serving with homosexuals and thus would choose to not serve in the military if open-homosexual were allowed to enlist... what would be the overall increase or decrease from allowing homosexual oriented individuals choose to enlist but then not actually do so in significant numbers and loosing a significant number of individuals that would have been easier to solicent to join if the homosexual question was never breached?

There is no reason to assume that allowing gays into the military would increase the total number of enlistees, whereas ther is a possibility that allowing homosexuals to join the military would actually decrease enlistment quotas...


It's just a thought.

Until the society as a whole is ready for it (if ever) why bother? From a enlistment strategy point of view.It's conceivable that an inclusive military might get non-homosexuals to join, as well.

It's conceivable that an inclusive military might get non-homosexuals to join, as well.

Yes, They might, but how many? They represent only 4% of the population, and if you lose 5% of your enlistees because of it, will you gain or loose in total numbers?

How many people consider joinging the military but then choose not to because open homosexuals are not admitted?

Yes, They might, but how many? They represent only 4% of the population, and if you lose 5% of your enlistees because of it, will you gain or loose in total numbers?

How many people consider joinging the military but then choose not to because open homosexuals are not admitted?I suppose it depends whether or not homosexuals are more likely to join than the average population, as well as the quality of the homosexual recruits compared to recruits in general, and the number of people who the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy is the reason they don't join the military.

It's obviously a leftist ploy to kill off all the good straight men and leave the country to be run by the gays. Obviously.

It's obviously a leftist ploy to kill off all the good straight men and leave the country to be run by the gays. Obviously.Won't hot pink camouflage look fabulous?

Won't hot pink camouflage look fabulous?

It's so obvious! Look at the blatently phallic missles and submarines! San Fransico will be the new capital by 2008.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious here or trying to bait me, because in trying to ridicule a point of PERSONAL FUCKING OBSERVATION, you've made yourself sound like a blithering idiot.

Fortunatelu even if I am a blithering idiot it is still OK because with you here we have a genius to raise the average level of the discussion What's even better is that you are a wizard of morale who is the unchallengeable leading expert in the field. If anybody becomes sad because an idiot is here you can boost their morale right up to it's normal level in a heartbeat.

Everyone knows that a PERSONAL FUCKING OBSERVER sounds like Einstein when he says that not only can he acciurately measure and detect any and all morale changes in any unit he wanders by but that since our genius used his remarkable talents and PERSONALLY FUCKING OBSERVED a few units his anecdotal story of these few units which the genius PERSONALLY FUCKING OBSERVED transfer to every serviceman in every unit of every branch of the United States Military. Only real geniuses like yourself have minds sharp enough to do that sort of thing without worrying about some smartass jumping up and calling them delusional because of it.

Fortunatelu even if I am a blithering idiot it is still OK because with you here we have a genius to raise the average level of the discussion What's even better is that you are a wizard of morale who is the unchallengeable leading expert in the field. If anybody becomes sad because an idiot is here you can boost their morale right up to it's normal level in a heartbeat.

Everyone knows that a PERSONAL FUCKING OBSERVER sounds like Einstein when he says that not only can he acciurately measure and detect any and all morale changes in any unit he wanders by but that since our genius used his remarkable talents and PERSONALLY FUCKING OBSERVED a few units his anecdotal story of these few units which PERSONALLY FUCKING OBSERVED transfer to every serviceman in every unit of every branch of the United States Military. Only real geniuses like yourself have minds sharp enough to do that sort of thing without worrying about some smartass jumping up and calling them delusional because of it.

I PERSONALLY FUCKING OBSERVE that that phrase rules.

The pretentious use of latin does not distract me from the fact that you are responding to a crappy use of analogy, rather than my point.

If someone is risking his or her life to defend certain freedoms, why is that person not allowed to enjoy those freedoms?

Your focusing on my so-called pretentious use of language just illustrates by how far you missed my point.

If the only real reason you can give to allow known homosexuals to serve in the armed forces is because they are defending certain freedoms, then you have created problems in justifying the employment of known homosexuals in other jobs.

IBM employees in their capacity as IBM employees do not fight for or defend your freedoms, thus by the argument you put forward it seems like there is no reason why known homosexuals shouldn't be fired from IBM at their employer's will.

Actually, if you are talking about the US army, they do have gays in the service. They have a "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy. :D

It's just a thought. Funny thing is, that's nearly the same reasoning for not allowing blacks into the military and for not letting them serve with whites.

Funny thing is, that's nearly the same reasoning for not allowing blacks into the military and for not letting them serve with whites.

*nods*

We can hardly have a policy that discriminates because some people may refuse to join with gays. That is their problem and we shouldn't cater to people who are homophobes. Such people need to deal with their prejudice.

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions

I think you should do your best to avoid further revelations. :)

I think you should do your best to avoid further revelations. :)

I just had a revelation... j00z 4r3 t3h 3\/1l

I think you should do your best to avoid further revelations. :)

I think I just revealed something out of my ass in agreement with you. Smells like pickles.

Actually, if you are talking about the US army, they do have gays in the service. They have a "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy. :D
Which has got the solomon ammendment in much hot water. Personally I think it is a win-win situation (the solomon ammendmnet that is, not dont ask dont tell)

It is a question of moral. If you want the US military to perform at peak capacity, you must maintain high moral. Homosexuals in the US military are not accepted by most military members and (whether you accept it or not) having homosexuals in the US military can lower moral.So these men, who are expected to travel around the world, roll in mud, crawl through trenches,and face the prospect of being blown up on a daily basis won't be able to deal with getting checked out by someone? If they're that fragile, perhaps the armed forces aren't the place for them.

Actually, if you are talking about the US army, they do have gays in the service. They have a "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy. :DWe covered that about 5 pages back. Please try to keep up.

I'm not going to pretend to know the end-all answer to this question ...

But here's a thought.

If 4% of the male population of American male high school students have a homosexual orientation, and 4% of the male high school students have a homophobia aversion to serving with homosexuals and thus would choose to not serve in the military if open-homosexuals were allowed to enlist... what would be the overall increase (or decrease) of enlistment numbers if allowing homosexually oriented individuals to choose to enlist came to pass. Would those homosexually oriented people then choose to serve or choose to not serve so in significant numbers? Would the military lose a significant number of individuals that would have been easier to solicent to join if the homosexual question was never breached at all? Perhaps.

There is no reason to assume that allowing gays into the military would increase the total number of enlistees, whereas there is a possibility that allowing homosexuals to join the military would actually decrease enlistment quotas...


It's just a thought.

Until the society as a whole is ready for it (if ever) why bother? From a enlistment strategy point of view.Ok, look at it like this. I think it's reasonably selfevident that, in and of itself, sexuality has no bearing on the competence of someone's ability as a soldier. The examples given of other countries bear that out.

So, what those who are against gays in the military are actually saying, is that they don't think that recruitment into the army should be based on finding the best person for the job. How is that a pro military position precisely?

And, when it comes down to it, is someone who considers disliking gays more important than serving their country the kind of person who should be in the army in the first place?

There are many gays in the US army, they just have this don't ask don't tell policy. Nobody asks if they are Gay, and the gay people don't say weather they are or not.

There are many gays in the US army, they just have this don't ask don't tell policy. Nobody asks if they are Gay, and the gay people don't say weather they are or not.

True. As long as you don't say the words "I am homosexual" or get caught in flagrante delicto you can be as openly gay as you want. That's the letter of the law, if not the spirit. Do I agree with it? I've already said no while being as politic as allowed under the UCMJ. Do I acknowledge that it is the law? Yes.

I actually see nothing wrong with it. What does army have to do with any kind of sexuality? Nothing. Absolutely. So how would screaming aloud that one is homosexual increase combat efficiency?


Take for comparison a forum. Let's say, a strictly moderated forum about, some game, for instance Operation Flashpoint. What will happen if you go into some topic about BMP vs Bradley and post "I am homosexual"? Right. You'll be looked upon as a retard, your post will be deleted, and you get warned, and banned if persistent. Is it homophobia?
And I don't see why army should have people going around and proclaiming their sexual orientation.

What does army have to do with any kind of sexuality? Nothing. Absolutely.
So then Congress should get rid of an irrelevant rule.

So how would screaming aloud that one is homosexual increase combat efficiency?
Nothing. Which is why I doubt anyone would ever do that. Can you imagine some grunt running around screaming like a banshee "I'M GAY! I'M GAY!" People'd be yelling back "So what. STFU! I'm trying to sight someone." LOL

So then Congress should get rid of an irrelevant rule.

Well, I think this rule isn't even worth the attention. And "If it's broken, don't fix it" has always been the ruling principle in the military.

I actually see nothing wrong with it. What does army have to do with any kind of sexuality? Nothing. Absolutely. So how would screaming aloud that one is homosexual increase combat efficiency?One of the finest fighting forces in history believed that two lovers would fight harder to impress eachother. Gotta love the Spartans.

But anyway, how would not pretending everyone's heterosexual decrease combat efficiency?

Well, I think this rule isn't even worth the attention. And "If it's broken, don't fix it" has always been the ruling principle in the military.

True, but Congress makes the rules under Article I, Section 8. This specific rule is 10 U.S.C. 654 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html).


(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

Funny thing is, that's nearly the same reasoning for not allowing blacks into the military and for not letting them serve with whites.

And at one time, during the civil war itself, Lincoln was having a hard enough time trying to maintain morale and keep the northern states behind their army without additionally integrating 'freed slaves' into the regular forces. But they did produce their own companies within the service of the armed forces. And by WWII, that policy had not yet been discarded. Does this make it right and fair? No, it does not. However, we can only imagine the outcome of the civil war IF the policy to allow African Americans, Chinese Americans and native Americans to serve via the draft into the regular military.

I would wonder how that wouldn't have resulted in a war of slaves, as far as policy and public opinion would have been. No better then the feudal system of the old world, sending the peon multitudes into the fray as nothing more than cannon fodder.

We cannot rightly judge past generations by the sensibilities of today. And neither can we dismiss the world and society we live in today simply by choosing to pretend it doesn’t exists.


Ok, look at it like this. I think it's reasonably selfevident that, in and of itself, sexuality has no bearing on the competence of someone's ability as a soldier. The examples given of other countries bear that out.

So, what those who are against gays in the military are actually saying, is that they don't think that recruitment into the army should be based on finding the best person for the job. How is that a pro military position precisely?

And, when it comes down to it, is someone who considers disliking gays more important than serving their country the kind of person who should be in the army in the first place?


How many homosexually oriented people that want to serve in the military aren't serving in the military now? How many are unable simply because they were unable, or unwilling, to keep their orientation to themselves while applying or serving?

IF a person is well qualified to serve in the military and the military agrees that their abilities are useful, I'd bet a decent wager that they are already in the military and serving their post just fine.

It is far more likely that people claiming to want into the military now, but are denied access because of their sexual orientation, are in actuality simply trying to push a political position and or make a public statement outside of actually serving in the military as their goal.

Those military people who have been booted out of service for sexual orientation are likely to have committed other infractions against the UMCJ, similar to how people are also booted out for adultery behavior and sexual harassment etc., getting caught in situations that are bad for the military image and or bad for overall morale and negatively impacting the service of others...

(snip for space)
I agree with a lot of that. I wonder if it might be a microcosm of the J-curve effect. (Before the ridicule begins, I'm only thinking out loud.) In order to move from one area of stability (oppressive exclusionist) to the other area of stability (non-oppressive inclusionist), the military would have to go through a brief period of instability (integration). It happened before with acceptance of black soldiers and sailors and it would happen again with acceptance of gay soldiers and sailors.

If it is the case then I'd have to decry the avoidance of a brief instability as reason to deny a group the opportunity to serve their country with honor.

And at one time, during the civil war itself, Lincoln was having a hard enough time trying to maintain morale and keep the northern states behind their army without additionally integrating 'freed slaves' into the regular forces. But they did produce their own companies within the service of the armed forces. And by WWII, that policy had not yet been discarded. Does this make it right and fair? No, it does not. However, we can only imagine the outcome of the civil war IF the policy to allow African Americans, Chinese Americans and native Americans to serve via the draft into the regular military.

I would wonder how that wouldn't have resulted in a war of slaves, as far as policy and public opinion would have been. No better then the feudal system of the old world, sending the peon multitudes into the fray as nothing more than cannon fodder.

We cannot rightly judge past generations by the sensibilities of today. And neither can we dismiss the world and society we live in today simply by choosing to pretend it doesn’t exists. Ah, but what you have missed in that wonderful piece of research is that by eventually forcing soldiers to accept, they did. The war we are currently fighting is not a war on which the very essence of our existence hinges, such as WWII or the Civil War.

Basically, there will be no change in the "morale" question over night, especially not if there is no confrontation. Like I said before, when my dad was drafted, he still experienced segregation of skin color, even though official policy stated otherwise.

But anyway, how would not pretending everyone's heterosexual decrease combat efficiency?
Distraction. Know why they don't allow women on u-boats?

The military excludes people who do not meet the standards that are set. Those standards include many factors including but not limited to physical and mental abilities, criminal record, drug use, etc.

Fuck that Celtlund, being heterosexual is not a legitimate "standard" that gays "fail to meet".

If you are not planning to work for IBM do you care about the qualifications for employment with IBM? If you are not planning on joining the US military or the Canadian military, do you care about the qualifications for employment with them? If yes, why?
Why is it only liberals in America who care about protecting the rights of all and not just themselves?

One quick question Nazz. Have you ever served in the US military?
You're just playing devil's advocate against all logic and reason.

Israel also has a conscripted army. Perhaps they were having a rash of people claiming homosexuality to get out of army duty?
I doubt it. Israel also has a very patriotic army.

It is a question of moral. If you want the US military to perform at peak capacity, you must maintain high moral. Homosexuals in the US military are not accepted by most military members and (whether you accept it or not) having homosexuals in the US military can lower moral.


Eww I get to take from Jon Stewart.

"Yea I would rather be killed in a terrorist attack rather then take an uncomfortable shower with a gay man."

Moral :rolleyes:

Strong moral can handle the presence of an icky faggot.

Well then again, there are probably Christians so you are right.

Distraction. Know why they don't allow women on u-boats?Because they're legally required to provide a separate restroom for them and there isn't enough space in submarines to warrant that?

Distraction. Know why they don't allow women on u-boats?

Because they aren't around anymore?

Fuck that Celtlund, being heterosexual is not a legitimate "standard" that gays "fail to meet".


Guess they didn't read about the Spartans, Greeks, and Romans.


Why is it only liberals in America who care about protecting the rights of all and not just themselves?

They tend to not like liberals either.

One of the finest fighting forces in history believed that two lovers would fight harder to impress eachother. Gotta love the Spartans.

But anyway, how would not pretending everyone's heterosexual decrease combat efficiency?

Just an aside. but wasn't that the Thebian's?

Just an aside. but wasn't that the Thebian's?The one of the finest fighting forces in history or the one with lovers fighting in the same cohort?

Because they're legally required to provide a separate restroom for them and there isn't enough space in submarines to warrant that?

And preferably separate showers, and so on. But this actually could be fixed quite easily. Besides temporary solutions, Navy can just finally fund the automated control systems, like ones soviets use for 30 years already, which allow to remove over half of the crew while doing the same job much faster and better.
The reason is different. Some part is that they don't want to fill the boat with condom dispensers, keep a gynecologist aboard, and be sued later if a child gets birth defects. But the actual reason is that they just don't want sex aboard. The Navy has regretted the decision to allow women on warships at all, so now they try to keep at least submarines the last stronghold. I don't believe the rumors that they cut funding for automation just to have an excuse (it's simply lack of funds), but at least they won't do anything that would make submarines suitable for women, unless absolutely forced to.
And this is the same reason they don't want homosexuals. Not because they are homosexual, but because they can find partners aboard. I can't tell about other branches, but I guess the Army and MC have just the same reason.

And preferably separate showers, and so on. But this actually could be fixed quite easily. Besides temporary solutions, Navy can just finally fund the automated control systems, like ones soviets use for 30 years already, which allow to remove over half of the crew while doing the same job much faster and better.
The reason is different. Some part is that they don't want to fill the boat with condom dispensers, keep a gynecologist aboard, and be sued later if a child gets birth defects. But the actual reason is that they just don't want sex aboard. The Navy has regretted the decision to allow women on warships at all, so now they try to keep at least submarines the last stronghold. I don't believe the rumors that they cut funding for automation just to have an excuse (it's simply lack of funds), but at least they won't do anything that would make submarines suitable for women, unless absolutely forced to.
And this is the same reason they don't want homosexuals. Not because they are homosexual, but because they can find partners aboard. I can't tell about other branches, but I guess the Army and MC have just the same reason.

I think the men of the Navy have always been able to find a partner. Either in the "British Naval Tradition", or on every port they get too. :D

Eww I get to take from Jon Stewart.

"Yea I would rather be killed in a terrorist attack rather then take an uncomfortable shower with a gay man."

Moral :rolleyes:

Strong moral can handle the presence of an icky faggot.

Well then again, there are probably Christians so you are right.

First of all it's morale not moral. Second, you have never been to war or been in a combat zone. You have no idea what the conditions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. In iraq, my company was put up in 3 story building on the outskirts of fallujah. We had one squad, 13 men, per medium sized room. It's 120-130 in that room and you have to sleep w/ no clothes w/ no blanket. I'm not sure but most marines i know would not be happy having a gay man in that room w/ them. Third, you really do underestimate the effect morale has on a units combat effectiveness and how fragile that morale is. Just imagine having to be on watch for 8 straight hours in 130 degree heat keeping the utmost vigilance watching your sector. The avg. person will zone out after 30min of extreme boredom. Now add that extreme boredom to the extreme fear of a sinper that could easily put a round in your chest if you slack off at all. No add the stress of doing that seven days a week for a year. Morale is already going to be low in those conditions but take away one of the few breaks of sleeping comfortably and morale is going to be through the floor.

Because they aren't around anymore?

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

What part of U-Boat confuses you?

First of all it's morale not moral. There's nicer ways of saying that. Why don't you bitch at the guy he was quoting?
EDIT: Snip

First of all it's morale not moral. Second, you have never been to war or been in a combat zone. You have no idea what the conditions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. In iraq, my company was put up in 3 story building on the outskirts of fallujah. We had one squad, 13 men, per medium sized room. It's 120-130 in that room and you have to sleep w/ no clothes w/ no blanket. I'm not sure but most marines i know would not be happy having a gay man in that room w/ them. Third, you really do underestimate the effect morale has on a units combat effectiveness and how fragile that morale is. Just imagine having to be on watch for 8 straight hours in 130 degree heat keeping the utmost vigilance watching your sector. The avg. person will zone out after 30min of extreme boredom. Now add that extreme boredom to the extreme fear of a sinper that could easily put a round in your chest if you slack off at all. No add the stress of doing that seven days a week for a year. Morale is already going to be low in those conditions but take away one of the few breaks of sleeping comfortably and morale is going to be through the floor.

First: Ewwwww you noticed a typo. Good for you.
Second: You don't know anything about me so your point means nothing.
Third: We have to take your word you are even served.
Fourth: Guess what sweetie?

Odds are you had one in your company.

Finally: Why don't you comment on the guy I quoted?

So these men, who are expected to travel around the world, roll in mud, crawl through trenches,and face the prospect of being blown up on a daily basis won't be able to deal with getting checked out by someone? If they're that fragile, perhaps the armed forces aren't the place for them.


A militarycity.com poll of military personel found that 65% of servicemembers are against gays openly serving in the military. So you think that we should get rid of 65% of our manpower?

A militarycity.com poll of military personel found that 65% of servicemembers are against gays openly serving in the military. So you think that we should get rid of 65% of our manpower?Did they say they would quit if it happened? What would you say about a poll at the time of segretation? Should we not have risked it in favor of manpower?

Second: You don't know anything about me so your point means nothing.
So you have served? I don't see how knowing you is a prerequisite to making my point.

Third: We have to take your word you are even served.
Regretably, yes.
Fourth: Guess what sweetie?

That makes no sense.
Odds are you had one in your company.
plus 123
Finally: Why don't you comment on the guy I quoted?
B/C i agree w/ him?

Did they say they would quit if it happened? What would you say about a poll at the time of segretation? Should we not have risked it in favor of manpower?

Exactly my thoughts.

B/C i agree w/ him?Ah, but he called it "Moral" and not "Morale" too...

Did they say they would quit if it happened? What would you say about a poll at the time of segretation? Should we not have risked it in favor of manpower?

I was just saying that he was wrong for making the accusation that anyone in the military who is against gays serving openly is unfit for service. Yes we should have, but i really do not think that allowing gays to say that they are gay is going to make large numbers of them sign up that haven't already.

What part of U-Boat confuses you?

The part about them not being around anymore.

I was just saying that he was wrong for making the accusation that anyone in the military who is against gays serving openly is unfit for service. Yes we should have, but i really do not think that allowing gays to say that they are gay is going to make large numbers of them sign up that haven't already.No, but it might prevent skilled personnel from being discharged simply for their sexual orientation instead of valid reasons.

No, but it might prevent skilled personnel from being discharged simply for their sexual orientation instead of valid reasons.

They didn't have to say that they were gay and one discharged servicemember is not that big of a deal anyway.

They didn't have to say that they were gay and one discharged servicemember is not that big of a deal anyway.They're also not allowed to have amourous relationships while off duty for fear of getting caught, if I'm not much mistaken (depending on how strict your CO is, of course).

Gays will be in the military just like in the (probably near) future, gays will be fully accepted into society. The sooner the better, in my opinion. Just as we are ashamed of our past pre-civil rights, we'll be (and fortunately, I believe most of us are) ashamed of the way we've treated homosexuals as a society. Those who don't agree with this are, in my opinion, in the way and are reminders of a past we'll soon be deeply ashamed of. Fighting for your country and fighting for the ones you love, no matter if they are the same sex, is every citizens right in the U.S.

They're also not allowed to have amourous relationships while off duty for fear of getting caught, if I'm not much mistaken (depending on how strict your CO is, of course).

And if they can't hold off until they aren't caught at home then how are they gonna hold off on a year long deployment?

They didn't have to say that they were gay and one discharged servicemember is not that big of a deal anyway.

It is when their particular specialty is in short supply already, and when there have been more than one of them. Earlier in the thread we were talking about the Arab linguists who have been dismissed under DADT.

And if they can't hold off until they aren't caught at home then how are they gonna hold off on a year long deployment?Why should they have to hold off when straight soldiers don't have to?

Gays will be in the military just like in the (probably near) future, gays will be fully accepted into society. The sooner the better, in my opinion. Just as we are ashamed of our past pre-civil rights, we'll be (and fortunately, I believe most of us are) ashamed of the way we've treated homosexuals as a society. Those who don't agree with this are, in my opinion, in the way and are reminders of a past we'll soon be deeply ashamed of. Fighting for your country and fighting for the ones you love, no matter if they are the same sex, is every citizens right in the U.S.

Are you also for polygamists and bestialitists to be accepted in society?

And if they can't hold off until they aren't caught at home then how are they gonna hold off on a year long deployment?Did you have to deal with that? Imagine never ever being allowed to do anything that would reveal you were heterosexual. No jokes, no comments on how hot a girl is, no magazines, no oggling at the female soldiers, no oggling at female soldiers period...
Now, I know I can keep myself restrained from sexual assault without any problem. I can even go without sex for a long time. Not being allowed to act heterosexual is asking a lot though.

Are you also for polygamists and bestialitists to be accepted in society?

This slippery slope is so slick! You must have spent all morning shining that baby up.

Why should they have to hold off when straight soldiers don't have to?

Post 115

The part about them not being around anymore.

U-boat is undersea boat. We still have submarines.

This slippery slope is so slick! You must have spent all morning shining that baby up.

Where is the moral difference between homosexuality, polygamy and bestiality?

Are you also for polygamists and bestialitists to be accepted in society?I'm no longer sure on my stance on polygamy, but for bestiality, consider that there's no consent involved, so it's irrelevant.

U-boat is undersea boat. We still have submarines.

I love synonyms.

Where is the moral difference between homosexuality, polygamy and bestiality?

I don't agree with polygamy but I see nothing immoral about it. Bestiality is immoral because an animal cannot consent.

Are you also for polygamists and bestialitists to be accepted in society?

As far as polygamy is concerned, if everyone in the arrangement is cool with it, then it's none of my business. Problem is, most polygamous arrangements in practice wind up being child molestation rings.

As for bestiality, go fuck yourself. It's beyond insulting to compare homosexuality to bestiality.

I'm no longer sure on my stance on polygamy, but for bestiality, consider that there's no consent involved, so it's irrelevant.

Fair enough

Where is the moral difference between homosexuality, polygamy and bestiality?Where's the moral difference between heterosexuality, homosexuality, polygamy, and bestiality? Tell you where: The first three are between consenting adults and the fourth one isn't.

Post 115
That doesn't answer my question.

Did you have to deal with that? Imagine never ever being allowed to do anything that would reveal you were heterosexual. No jokes, no comments on how hot a girl is, no magazines, no oggling at the female soldiers, no oggling at female soldiers period...
Now, I know I can keep myself restrained from sexual assault without any problem. I can even go without sex for a long time. Not being allowed to act heterosexual is asking a lot though.

And that means that you would have to show that you are homosexual and after that refer to post 115

Where is the moral difference between homosexuality, polygamy and bestiality?

None. I'm fine with all of them.

That doesn't answer my question.

I'm pretty sure your post was in essence asking why gays shouldn't be allowed in the military and that post answers it.

Where's the moral difference between heterosexuality, homosexuality, polygamy, and bestiality? Tell you where: The first three are between consenting adults and the fourth one isn't.

Heterosexuality actually has a productive purpose where as all the others don't. I already said fair enough on the bestiality one.

And that means that you would have to show that you are homosexual and after that refer to post 115I have my doubts about you being holed up for your entire duration of service. I may have never been in the military, but I know people that are or have been in the military and they get off occasionally, even if its only by ending one of their tours of Iraq or Afghanistan and being stationed somewhere safer.

I'm pretty sure your post was in essence asking why gays shouldn't be allowed in the military and that post answers it.

It's bullshit. A trained military man should be concerned with his duty. Or are you saying that if a female soldier were in that room she would be in danger of being raped. I'd think that fear of what is outside that room and the duty involved in getting the job done would be more important than getting sexual satisfaction. Unless soldiers are not trained to have control over themselves?

Heterosexuality actually has a productive purpose where as all the others don't. I already said fair enough on the bestiality one.

So morality ranking is determined by productivity?

Heterosexuality actually has a productive purpose where as all the others don't.Not when it's involving oral sex or condoms...
I already said fair enough on the bestiality one.Yeah, it wasn't there when I started posting though.

So morality ranking is determined by productivity?

And love is not productive.

I have my doubts about you being holed up for your entire duration of service. I may have never been in the military, but I know people that are or have been in the military and they get off occasionally, even if its only by ending one of their tours of Iraq or Afghanistan and being stationed somewhere safer.
Yeah, after a year. Like i said.

I'm pretty sure your post was in essence asking why gays shouldn't be allowed in the military and that post answers it.

That's not what I was asking at all. I was responding to your statement--and I quoted it so you'd see the context. I'll quote it again here. You said, "And if they can't hold off until they aren't caught at home then how are they gonna hold off on a year long deployment?"

My reply was "Why should they have to hold off when straight soldiers don't have to?"

Now, I'll say it again--if straight soldiers, when they are not deployed, are not required to hold off from showing their sexuality, why should gay soldiers be required to?

And to extend the question, are you really suggesting that gay males are so irretrievably horny that they'd go mad with sexual energy and rape their fellow soldiers in their sleep during a deployment?

Yeah, after a year. Like i said.
Ok. Sorry, misinterpreted then. How would you like to be a closet hetero for over a year then?

It's bullshit. A trained military man should be concerned with his duty. Or are you saying that if a female soldier were in that room she would be in danger of being raped. I'd think that fear of what is outside that room and the duty involved in getting the job done would be more important than getting sexual satisfaction. Unless soldiers are not trained to have control over themselves?

They certainly aren't trained to maintain a military like focus for an entire year w/o any periods of lapse. We are humans, not robots. Mabye you've heard the cliche war is 99 percent boredom and 1 percent complete terror. If you expected someone to maintain complete discipline 24/7 for a year they'd go crazy. Believe it or not but there is a lot of time where you are not a mindless killer but a human.

Ok. Sorry, misinterpreted then. How would you like to be a closet hetero for over a year then?

That's why i wouldn't want to join the military. I would know (not like) that if my fellow marines knew i was gay that i would be doing more harm than good.

Fighting for your country and fighting for the ones you love, no matter if they are the same sex, is every citizens right in the U.S.
The question is not about whom you love and have sex with.

The question is whether ones you love and have sex with can be in your squad. It is much better to leave your beloved at home and be concerned with the war while on the frontline, not with sex.

It's not that I'm against gays in military, and I think gays practitioning homosexuality only when not on duty are OK. But restrictions to not having or attempting any sex with other soldiers are essential for normal functioning of the army.

The question is not about whom you love and have sex with.

The question is whether ones you love and have sex with can be in your squad. It is much better to leave your beloved at home and be concerned with the war while on the frontline, not with sex.

That would only matter if you were in a sexual relationship with members of your squad, which is against the code of military conduct, as I understand it, no matter the sex of those you serve with.

Now, I'll say it again--if straight soldiers, when they are not deployed, are not required to hold off from showing their sexuality, why should gay soldiers be required to?
Wow, because it creates tensions and lowered morale to know that a fellow marine is gay as i stated in post 115. Here i'll copy and paste the parts that pertain to this (all but one sentence): you have never been to war or been in a combat zone. You have no idea what the conditions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. In iraq, my company was put up in 3 story building on the outskirts of fallujah. We had one squad, 13 men, per medium sized room. It's 120-130 in that room and you have to sleep w/ no clothes w/ no blanket. I'm not sure but most marines i know would not be happy having a gay man in that room w/ them. Third, you really do underestimate the effect morale has on a units combat effectiveness and how fragile that morale is. Just imagine having to be on watch for 8 straight hours in 130 degree heat keeping the utmost vigilance watching your sector. The avg. person will zone out after 30min of extreme boredom. Now add that extreme boredom to the extreme fear of a sinper that could easily put a round in your chest if you slack off at all. No add the stress of doing that seven days a week for a year. Morale is already going to be low in those conditions but take away one of the few breaks of sleeping comfortably and morale is going to be through the floor.

And to extend the question, are you really suggesting that gay males are so irretrievably horny that they'd go mad with sexual energy and rape their fellow soldiers in their sleep during a deployment?
No, of course not. However, knowing that the guy looking at your naked ass sleeping right next to you is gay is not a comforting feeling and creates tensions in the unit. Also, if an officer was gay and his men knew it that could only create a lack of respect and confidence in that unit. The last thing you need.

Yeah, after a year. Like i said.
*sighs* You've been in the service, HOW long now?

Tell me, how many times have you been raped or almost raped by a gay service member? We DO know they are in the service after all.

My word, it just MUST be happening left and right to cause this ammount of concern.

Of course, funnily enough, I've shared rooms, tents, and even beds with other guys I knew were gay when we were out at various university functions and, oddly enough, I awoke without being raped every single time. It never crossed my mind that they were even THINKING about that.

Jesh, I never thought I'd have to tell a Marine to grow some balls.

Wow, because it creates tensions and lowered morale to know that a fellow marine is gay as i stated in post 115. Here i'll copy and paste the parts that pertain to this (all but one sentence): you have never been to war or been in a combat zone. You have no idea what the conditions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. In iraq, my company was put up in 3 story building on the outskirts of fallujah. We had one squad, 13 men, per medium sized room. It's 120-130 in that room and you have to sleep w/ no clothes w/ no blanket. I'm not sure but most marines i know would not be happy having a gay man in that room w/ them. Third, you really do underestimate the effect morale has on a units combat effectiveness and how fragile that morale is. Just imagine having to be on watch for 8 straight hours in 130 degree heat keeping the utmost vigilance watching your sector. The avg. person will zone out after 30min of extreme boredom. Now add that extreme boredom to the extreme fear of a sinper that could easily put a round in your chest if you slack off at all. No add the stress of doing that seven days a week for a year. Morale is already going to be low in those conditions but take away one of the few breaks of sleeping comfortably and morale is going to be through the floor.


No, of course not. However, knowing that the guy looking at your naked ass sleeping right next to you is gay is not a comforting feeling and creates tensions in the unit. Also, if an officer was gay and his men knew it that could only create a lack of respect and confidence in that unit. The last thing you need.
In other words, because it makes you feel icky. Because really, that's what it comes down to--it makes you feel icky. Well, it no doubt made white soldiers feel icky the first time they served in integrated units, but they managed to make it work. And gay soldiers serve with great distinction in other militaries around the world, including the vaunted Israeli Defense Force. So like I asked earlier in the thread--does this mean that the IDF is more badass than the US military? Because they seem to handle it no problem.

In iraq, my company was put up in 3 story building on the outskirts of fallujah. We had one squad, 13 men, per medium sized room. It's 120-130 in that room and you have to sleep w/ no clothes w/ no blanket. I'm not sure but most marines i know would not be happy having a gay man in that room w/ them.

I love it when homophobes demonstrate a fear of getting hit on. It's even funnier when they're offended after you show no interest.

Now, USMC, I would like to point out that the UK and Australian militaries both allow gays. How much harder would your job be (and how much lower would morale be) if Australia and the UK withdrew their troops? After all, if you don't want American homos serving, then surely you wouldn't want our troops...

First of all it's morale not moral. Second, you have never been to war or been in a combat zone. You have no idea what the conditions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. In iraq, my company was put up in 3 story building on the outskirts of fallujah. We had one squad, 13 men, per medium sized room. It's 120-130 in that room and you have to sleep w/ no clothes w/ no blanket. I'm not sure but most marines i know would not be happy having a gay man in that room w/ them. Third, you really do underestimate the effect morale has on a units combat effectiveness and how fragile that morale is. Just imagine having to be on watch for 8 straight hours in 130 degree heat keeping the utmost vigilance watching your sector. The avg. person will zone out after 30min of extreme boredom. Now add that extreme boredom to the extreme fear of a sinper that could easily put a round in your chest if you slack off at all. No add the stress of doing that seven days a week for a year. Morale is already going to be low in those conditions but take away one of the few breaks of sleeping comfortably and morale is going to be through the floor.

Okay... wouldn't it be better to just teach bigoted personnel to not be scared of the icky LGBs than to lower the morale of LGB personnel and turn away needed people who would have enlisted if it weren't for the armed service's policy towards LGBs?

I spit on the prospects of gays in the military,frankly I don't think its hmophobia, its indecency. The real thing to focus on here is that soldiers have enough to worry about and they don't need to worry about gettin hit on by some queer. These don't ask don't tell rules are just what the military needs to keep subjects like this from sturring up.

Goddamn fags. Always buttfucking poor American manly-men. Ass-mongering Gucci-clad maggots. A straight mac ho man would never hit on a female or rape anyone. Only faggots do that.

I commend both of you for having the... what is the right word... courage, guts, balls, cojones, whatever it's called, to call them queers and faggots, instead of calling them "gays" lest GOD FORBID you hurt their poor little feelings.

I think we should go further and use the Biblical term for them (get ready to be offended): SODOMITES!

No, I will not apologize for calling them that; it is long overdue that somebody stand up to them and their friends and sympathizers in the news media and the government, and call them what they are, instead of worrying about hurting their poor little feelings.

Stop FEELING and start THINKING! LONG LIVE FREE, POLITICALLY INCORRECT SPEECH!

I commend both of you for having the... what is the right word... courage, guts, balls, cojones, whatever it's called, to call them queers and faggots, instead of calling them "gays" lest GOD FORBID you hurt their poor little feelings.

I think we should go further and use the Biblical term for them (get ready to be offended): SODOMITES!

No, I will not apologize for calling them that; it is long overdue that somebody stand up to them and their friends and sympathizers in the news media and the government, and call them what they are, instead of worrying about hurting their poor little feelings.

Stop FEELING and start THINKING! LONG LIVE FREE, POLITICALLY INCORRECT SPEECH!

*nod* That's a good job... making yourself look like a jackass on the first post...

After spending time in a group, you get to know the people. And if you learn that one of them is gay, fair enough. By then they will probably know that you are straight. (One of my best friends is Bi). But being gay doesn't mean that you abandon your sense of propriety. I'm sure that they wouldn't even think of molesting their fellow soldiers, in the same way that a straight person wouldn't think of molesting any of their female friends.

And love is not productive.

Wouldn't abstinence also be considered immoral? :rolleyes:

I commend both of you for having the... what is the right word... courage, guts, balls, cojones, whatever it's called, to call them queers and faggots, instead of calling them "gays" lest GOD FORBID you hurt their poor little feelings.

I think we should go further and use the Biblical term for them (get ready to be offended): SODOMITES!

No, I will not apologize for calling them that; it is long overdue that somebody stand up to them and their friends and sympathizers in the news media and the government, and call them what they are, instead of worrying about hurting their poor little feelings.

Stop FEELING and start THINKING! LONG LIVE FREE, POLITICALLY INCORRECT SPEECH!
Why would we call them Sodmites? Since we're talking about the US military, most of them would be from the US and I'm fairly sure the US doesn't have a town or city called Sodom (I could be wrong, we have a lot of strange places). But even if we did, I'm positive not all the homosexual military peps were from there.

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions

Since, in ancient times, some of the most effective armies contained homosexual partners (they fought side by side and protected each other's backs) and even some homosexual regiments (check out the Janissaries), the Pentagon's stance is pretty much based on homophobia and politics.

I love synonyms.

Problem slick:

People don't think of the Titan class when you mention U-Boats.

That would only matter if you were in a sexual relationship with members of your squad, which is against the code of military conduct, as I understand it, no matter the sex of those you serve with.
Of course. The military just uses preventive measures. Separate men from women, and avoid overt gays, so that it would have less risk of happening.


BTW, generally, I personally hardly can understand why do gays join military at all. Not that I'm against - I don't get their motives; after all, most gays are 'metrosexual', which is hard to keep in army; they are concerned with sex, which is forbidden; they are more of civilian type than macho; ... I just don't understand them.

BTW, generally, I personally hardly can understand why do gays join military at all. Not that I'm against - I don't get their motives; after all, most gays are 'metrosexual', which is hard to keep in army; they are concerned with sex, which is forbidden; they are more of civilian type than macho; ... I just don't understand them.

Maybe, just maybe... not all stereotypes are accurate?

The pentagon does not allow homosexuals to serve in the army because the ones in charge are retarded homophobes.

Gays and even lesbians already serve in the Canadian, British, and Autralian armed forces. They don't cause any particular problems, nor do they affect unit cohesion negatively. I have never heard of a case about a Canadian soldier raped by a gay fellow soldier.

The homphobes just need to face the fact that gays are neither dumber, weaker, nor more prone to sexually assault someone than the average heterosexual next door. Their presence doesn't detract anything from the professionnalism or efficiency of their army corps.

Don't ask don't tell is simply a stupid compromise that was made because the US army needed the manpower boost that gays can offer to the forces, without having to openly acknowledge that being gay does not affect ability to be a good soldier. It's high time the US of A followed the rest of the civilized world's example and stop being bigoted pricks about homosexuality.

Where is the moral difference between homosexuality, polygamy and bestiality?

Consent.

Maybe, just maybe... not all stereotypes are accurate?
Well, I said - most. And this is not denied by gays themselves.

For different ones - less concerned with sex and more disciplined - I just don't see reasons to proclaim their orientation in the army.
After all, heterosexuals do have to put their sexuality aside in military.

Well, I said - most. And this is not denied by gays themselves.

For different ones - less concerned with sex and more disciplined - I just don't see reasons to proclaim their orientation in the army.
After all, heterosexuals do have to put their sexuality aside in military.
It is now. I deny it.

I'm not metrosexual. You can't tell I'm gay from my clothes or demeanor.

I'm not much "concerned with sex", since I've been celibate for two years now. Haven't touched a guy since my last steady boyfriend.

I'm also quite macho. Towards women AND men.

There are many other gays who behave such as I do. And you know what? I still "proclaim" my orientation. I'm not ashamed by it. And if I don't fit the aforementionned stereotypes, it's not because I don't want people to know I'm gay. It's simply because those stereotypes don't fit ME.

I'm not in the army, but if I was, I wouldn't hesistate to let my orientation be known. Just like I don't hesitate telling my friends. Or co-workers. Or teachers or bosses. Because I don't feel the need to hide who I am.

I'm not much "concerned with sex", since I've been celibate for two years now.

And you consider yourself a true gay?

That's why i wouldn't want to join the military. I would know (not like) that if my fellow marines knew i was gay that i would be doing more harm than good.

Do you respect the Marines that were at Tarawa?

Now take one of them and decorate him a few times. Still respect him?

Now add in the fact he was a transvestite?

Does that dismiss all that he had done?

That Marine was the famed B Grade movie director Ed Wood.

That's why i wouldn't want to join the military. I would know (not like) that if my fellow marines knew i was gay that i would be doing more harm than good.

My best friend is gay and just got out of bootcamp and is currently stationed in New York. He has a slightly flamboyant nature, but nothing too obvious. In fact, if you were to meet him for the first time without knowing anything about him, you wouldn't think he was. Nonetheless he plays his part while in uniform and deepens his voice a little so no one will suspect him of anything, because if they did, it would change group chemistry even though it doesn't make him anymore or less of a man.


And you consider yourself a true gay?

Just because he doesn't fall into your sterotype, as misleading as it is, doesn't make him any more or less gay, it just shows how stupid your sterotype is. and the reason why some homosexuals would want to join the army is because they love their country enough to support it even though their society has done nothing to support them, this is the mark of patriots and noble men.

btw If you venture any further into trying to protect your claims it will only highlight your ignorance even more so then you already have.

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions
The gay guys could bunk together, and the straights could have coed sleeping arrangements. Problem solved:D

Next order of business: work on recruiting more women!

So, what have we learned from this thread so far?

That members of the US military consider gettng shot, bombed or bayonetted all to be perfectly acceptable parts of their job, but knowing that the chap standing next to them likes to suck cock is enough to send them into panic and is quite clearly beyond the pale.

Make of that what you will.

No, of course not. However, knowing that the guy looking at your naked ass sleeping right next to you is gay is not a comforting feeling and creates tensions in the unit. If (and this is a huge if) he enjoys looking at your ass, mightn't he be more likely to save it in a combat situation?

Do you respect the Marines that were at Tarawa?

Now take one of them and decorate him a few times. Still respect him?

Now add in the fact he was a transvestite?

Does that dismiss all that he had done?

That Marine was the famed B Grade movie director Ed Wood.

Ed Wood wasnt gay.

He just dug on womens clothes.

Since, in ancient times, some of the most effective armies contained homosexual partners (they fought side by side and protected each other's backs) and even some homosexual regiments (check out the Janissaries), the Pentagon's stance is pretty much based on homophobia and politics.

Janissaries had homosexual regiments? Do you have a source for that?

(NB: Don't particuarly care about gays in the military. I never plan to join so it hardly effects me, but I think the army should let open homosexuals in)

So, what have we learned from this thread so far?

That members of the US military consider gettng shot, bombed or bayonetted all to be perfectly acceptable parts of their job, but knowing that the chap standing next to them likes to suck cock is enough to send them into panic and is quite clearly beyond the pale.

Make of that what you will.

Come the revolution, that will be useful to know.

Do you respect the Marines that were at Tarawa?

Now take one of them and decorate him a few times. Still respect him?

Now add in the fact he was a transvestite?

Does that dismiss all that he had done?

That Marine was the famed B Grade movie director Ed Wood.

No i don't. None of his fellow marines knew it so it could have no affect.

My best friend is gay and just got out of bootcamp and is currently stationed in New York. He has a slightly flamboyant nature, but nothing too obvious. In fact, if you were to meet him for the first time without knowing anything about him, you wouldn't think he was. Nonetheless he plays his part while in uniform and deepens his voice a little so no one will suspect him of anything, because if they did, it would change group chemistry even though it doesn't make him anymore or less of a man.

And i think that that is admirable. He is not only willing to serve his country but is willing to hide something about himself to make it work for his unit.

If (and this is a huge if) he enjoys looking at your ass, mightn't he be more likely to save it in a combat situation?

I really don't think that you can get closer to another person than when you have been to combat with them. I know a couple marines better than my wife.

Are some people here seriously saying that the vast majority of the U.S. military are homophobic bigots? What a sad state of affairs. The Australian Military has allowed open homosexuality for ages here, I believe it's the same with the Israelies, British and Canadians to name a few. Why does it matter so much that a guy can't talk about the hot piece of male ass he's got waiting for him back home? Are you guys really that paranoid?

Are some people here seriously saying that the vast majority of the U.S. military are homophobic bigots? What a sad state of affairs. The Australian Military has allowed open homosexuality for ages here, I believe it's the same with the Israelies, British and Canadians to name a few. Why does it matter so much that a guy can't talk about the hot piece of male ass he's got waiting for him back home? Are you guys really that paranoid?

The British government only recently allowed homosexuals to serve, and they had to be taken to court before they raised the ban.

At least being part of Europe has some benefits.

I commend both of you for having the... what is the right word... courage, guts, balls, cojones, whatever it's called, to call them queers and faggots, instead of calling them "gays" lest GOD FORBID you hurt their poor little feelings.

I think we should go further and use the Biblical term for them (get ready to be offended): SODOMITES!

No, I will not apologize for calling them that; it is long overdue that somebody stand up to them and their friends and sympathizers in the news media and the government, and call them what they are, instead of worrying about hurting their poor little feelings.

Stop FEELING and start THINKING! LONG LIVE FREE, POLITICALLY INCORRECT SPEECH!Hehehe. Must suck to find out one of the people you were quoting was being ironic... :D

Problem slick:

People don't think of the Titan class when you mention U-Boats.Er, I think of these things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine) when someone says U Boat...

Everyone knows that gaydiation destroys your ability to shoot straight or march in a straight line. :rolleyes:

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions

What a bullshit post. And people complain about me...:rolleyes:

1.why should a soldier ever declare what his sexual orientation is? and if he changes?
2.why should his officer ask? is he sexually interested?
3.why should that matter, as long as sexual intercourses are forbidden?
4.and if you're scared by having someone admiring your ass, why don't you put on some underwear when you're sleeping?
5.if you're scared by someone asking you to have sex with him, why don't you just learn to say "no, thank you, you're not my type"?
6.you're in greater risk of having your ass touched in a crowded bus than in a boot camp. why don't you avoid buses also?
7.why do people always think of homosexual males when speaking of homosexuality, when there are plenty of homosexual females?

1.why should a soldier ever declare what his sexual orientation is? and if he changes?
2.why should his officer ask? is he sexually interested?
3.why should that matter, as long as sexual intercourses are forbidden?
4.and if you're scared by having someone admiring your ass, why don't you put on some underwear when you're sleeping?
5.if you're scared by someone asking you to have sex with him, why don't you just learn to say "no, thank you, you're not my type"?
6.you're in greater risk of having your ass touched in a crowded bus than in a boot camp. why don't you avoid buses also?
7.why do people always think of homosexual males when speaking of homosexuality, when there are plenty of homosexual females?

1: Soldiers don't have to, but people's actions often imply their sexuality.
2-7: Because people are idiots.

Ya know, I've just struck upon a recent revelation. Perhaps the reason why the Army won't allow gays in it is because they are afraid that if they do, recruitments will drop sharply. Why would that be? well, most men wouldb't exactly want to share a bunk with a gay guy or watever. Eventually there would be an all gay redgiment out there and it would just be more trouble than its worth in the eyes of the Pentagon I beleive.


Anyhow that's my conclusion, the government is afraid to say it because it doesn't want to be branded as a homophobe. Any opinions
So we're supposed to want to give guns to the kind of man who still is hung up on the "icky fags" kind of mentality? We're supposed to spend taxpayer money to educate and train that kind of pathetic little boy, and then give him lethal toys to play with? And that's going to make our military stronger somehow?

Modern warfare needs to be fought with more intelligence than just a bunch of infantry grunts being thrown into a meat grinder. We're not going to be able to wage smart modern warfare if we specifically select the stupidest oafs to be our soldiers.

So we're supposed to want to give guns to the kind of man who still is hung up on the "icky fags" kind of mentality? We're supposed to spend taxpayer money to educate and train that kind of pathetic little boy, and then give him lethal toys to play with? And that's going to make our military stronger somehow?

Modern warfare needs to be fought with more intelligence than just a bunch of infantry grunts being thrown into a meat grinder. We're not going to be able to wage smart modern warfare if we specifically select the stupidest oafs to be our soldiers.

Speaking as a former infantryman in the days before "don't ask, don't tell" (which is probably the stupidest order ever given in history), few hetero soldiers have a problem with openly gay or bisexual or lesbian soldiers.

Very few.

Commanders used to have discretion in how to deal with any friction - in most units, it never was an issue. At all. And resolving it used to take the form of transferring one or both soldiers - depending on the nature of the problem.

But after Clinton gave that order, more gays, lesbians, and bisexuals were thrown out of the military in just a few years than in all the years the US military has existed. Because it removed the commander's discretion in dealing with any animosity that resulted from someone not liking gay people.

I was openly bisexual. And I never had a problem with anyone. I knew openly gay and lesbian people - and problems were RARE. Sure, there are assholes - but they are everywhere, too.

Trying to "fix" a non-existent problem with an official order from on high - that showed just how little Clinton and the other people who supported the "don't ask, don't tell" policy understand about the nature of the military.

Give an order, and massive changes take place.

Most hetero soldiers DO NOT CARE. Period.

No thats stupid because you may as well say that we shouldn't allow Arabic Muslims into the Army.

Anyways, the US Army and the USMC both make it so you are not allowed to state your sexuality. Basically, they don't want to know if you are gay. If you state that you are and there is a problem, true there is a possibility you'll be sent to a base instead of the front lines.

However, being gay doesn't seem to prevent men and women from joining the United States Armed Forces. To think that it does is ludicrous, however is true that the Pentagon is scared.

And I can assure you, the USMC will be the first to say it does not give a shit if you're Black, White, Yellow, Polka-dot, male, female, or gayer than Liberachi. If you have a commitment to serve your country, and you want to see that commitment through, then you are a true courageous person.

*snip for length*

Most hetero soldiers DO NOT CARE. Period.
I'm not in the military, but I happen to have several close friends who are (particularly since I started working near the Pentagon). All of them happen to be straight, and none of them give two shits about the sexual orientation of their collegues, civilian or enlisted.

What bugs me is that most PEOPLE don't care about this kind of bullshit. There are a few very loud, very cootie-crazed wackos who are certain that homos are ruining the country, and they're screaming so loud it gives the rest of us a headache. But most Americans don't give a flying fuck because we're too busy dealing with our bankrupted country, our family members off fighting a losing war, and our government fucking us over at every possible opportunity.

We're far more worried about making sure our own kids have health insurance than we are worried about fags jumping out of the shadows to snatch good white conservative babies for their pagan rituals.

Right now, American soldiers have all that to worry about and more. They've got to worry about being fucked over when they try to buy themselves the body armor that their leaders won't give them, and they've also got to worry about their kids' dental insurance back home. They've got to worry about whether they'll be killed trying to re-take the same damn town they took last week, and they've got to worry about if their aging parents will be able to afford the medication they need.

It is pathetic to suggest that our military needs to worry about homos at this point. Our military needs all the help it can get, and if that help just so happens to like having sex with help of the same gender, then who the fuck cares?!

I'm not in the military, but I happen to have several close friends who are (particularly since I started working near the Pentagon). All of them happen to be straight, and none of them give two shits about the sexual orientation of their collegues, civilian or enlisted.

What bugs me is that most PEOPLE don't care about this kind of bullshit. There are a few very loud, very cootie-crazed wackos who are certain that homos are ruining the country, and they're screaming so loud it gives the rest of us a headache. But most Americans don't give a flying fuck because we're too busy dealing with our bankrupted country, our family members off fighting a losing war, and our government fucking us over at every possible opportunity.

We're far more worried about making sure our own kids have health insurance than we are worried about fags jumping out of the shadows to snatch good white conservative babies for their pagan rituals.

Right now, American soldiers have all that to worry about and more. They've got to worry about being fucked over when they try to buy themselves the body armor that their leaders won't give them, and they've also got to worry about their kids' dental insurance back home. They've got to worry about whether they'll be killed trying to re-take the same damn town they took last week, and they've got to worry about if their aging parents will be able to afford the medication they need.

It is pathetic to suggest that our military needs to worry about homos at this point. Our military needs all the help it can get, and if that help just so happens to like having sex with help of the same gender, then who the fuck cares?!

I also remember hearing crap from politicians about "a homo might see you naked".

Well.

I distinctly remember during the first Gulf War, getting to an area in the middle of nowhere where soldiers could bathe. Jury-rigged shower stalls, etc.

And men and women, naked, showering. Sure, a few men sported hardons, but there was no orgy in progress (more's the pity).

We bathed, and some of us were really happy to bathe, because we hadn't bathed in months.

We also had to go to the bathroom out in the open. No vegetation out there you know. Your friends were polite, and looked the other way while you did your business. No, we didn't leer at each other's naked asses.

I think a lot of the people who say, "it's a problem" have NEVER been out in the field with soldiers, and have no fucking idea how we lived.

I also remember hearing crap from politicians about "a homo might see you naked".

Well.

I distinctly remember during the first Gulf War, getting to an area in the middle of nowhere where soldiers could bathe. Jury-rigged shower stalls, etc.

And men and women, naked, showering. Sure, a few men sported hardons, but there was no orgy in progress (more's the pity).

We bathed, and some of us were really happy to bathe, because we hadn't bathed in months.

We also had to go to the bathroom out in the open. No vegetation out there you know. Your friends were polite, and looked the other way while you did your business. No, we didn't leer at each other's naked asses.

I think a lot of the people who say, "it's a problem" have NEVER been out in the field with soldiers, and have no fucking idea how we lived.

We trust you with guns. We trust you with bombs. We trust you with grenades. We trust you to observe. We trust you to 'spot'. We trust you with technology. We trust you to fight. We trust you to die. We trust you to kill. We trust you to look after each other. We trust you to look after civilians. We trust you to look after the enemy. We trust you to keep secrets. We trust you to uphold the good name of your nation.

Your own genitals? Sorry - can't trust you with those....

1: Soldiers don't have to, but people's actions often imply their sexuality.
2-7: Because people are idiots.

1.Sure. But why don't people show the same unease they show to explicit homosexual behaviour to those "hey, look at me, I screwed more women you can even imagine" sterotypical macho-men? I think sexuality should stay in the "private" area, and if it transpares from behaviour for lack of ability to keep it private, other people should try not to mind about it, as long as it is not exaggerated.

2-7.Agreed. That is the real problem of this world. That is the reason why I created a nation in NS, to experiment what a country would be if the people's average IQ were at least 85. Some months training, and I will create MY OWN UNIVERSE. Only people with at least 12 Intelligence in a 3d6 system accepted.:D

We trust you with guns. We trust you with bombs. We trust you with grenades. We trust you to observe. We trust you to 'spot'. We trust you with technology. We trust you to fight. We trust you to die. We trust you to kill. We trust you to look after each other. We trust you to look after civilians. We trust you to look after the enemy. We trust you to keep secrets. We trust you to uphold the good name of your nation.

Your own genitals? Sorry - can't trust you with those....
It goes right along with the fucked-up priorities held by the radicals running our country.

Our government is torturing people ion secret prisons. But HOMOSEXUALITY is obscene.

Our soldiers are being denied the equipment they need to survive the war they're being told to fight. But HOMOSEXULITY is a sin.

Our own citizens are being denied the very freedoms that those soldiers are fighting and dying to protect. But we'll be sure to provide them with endless help in running their sex lives.

Bared boobies? Million dollar fines. Consentual sexual relations between adults? Panic, chaos, somebody think of the children!

Violence? No sweat, that's a PG rating and have a nice day.

It goes right along with the fucked-up priorities held by the radicals running our country.

Our government is torturing people ion secret prisons. But HOMOSEXUALITY is obscene.

Our soldiers are being denied the equipment they need to survive the war they're being told to fight. But HOMOSEXULITY is a sin.

Our own citizens are being denied the very freedoms that those soldiers are fighting and dying to protect. But we'll be sure to provide them with endless help in running their sex lives.

Bared boobies? Million dollar fines. Consentual sexual relations between adults? Panic, chaos, somebody think of the children!

Violence? No sweat, that's a PG rating and have a nice day.

Well, it's not JUST the radicals in charge... it taps into something more visceral... more plebian than just governemntal fun and games. Example: I'm in Wal-Mart, looking at the magazine racks. No porn, obviously. But about a dozen different titles dedicated to a piece of machinery that serves no purpose other than to kill... why do we hide and denigrate the sensual, while celebrating and sensationalising that which destroys?

Maybe I'm an exception. Maybe I'm weird. But, I'd rather fuck than fight.

Maybe I'm an exception. Maybe I'm weird. But, I'd rather fuck than fight.It's called being European :p

It's called being European :p

Ah, yes. Guilty as charged. And I'm, not even French... (although, I guess, that just means I could fight if I wanted to...) :o

Well, it's not JUST the radicals in charge... it taps into something more visceral... more plebian than just governemntal fun and games. Example: I'm in Wal-Mart, looking at the magazine racks. No porn, obviously. But about a dozen different titles dedicated to a piece of machinery that serves no purpose other than to kill... why do we hide and denigrate the sensual, while celebrating and sensationalising that which destroys?

Maybe I'm an exception. Maybe I'm weird. But, I'd rather fuck than fight.

What got me is that, where I live, the movie The Birdcage received the same rating as Die Hard.

The Birdcage contains no violence, no sex, and I don't think there's even any nudity of any kind. There are some curse words, and the subject of the movie is a family with two homosexual parents.

Die Hard is a graphic movie (containing at least as much profanity as the Birdcage) which features the violent killings of numerous people.

I'm not trying to argue the relative merits of either film, mind you. I'm not saying that either film is a great work of art (although "yippee kayay motherfucker" may be the greatest line ever penned for the screen). It is the fact that these two movies are deemed worthy of the same rating which boggles my mind.

What got me is that, where I live, the movie The Birdcage received the same rating as Die Hard.

The Birdcage contains no violence, no sex, and I don't think there's even any nudity of any kind. There are some curse words, and the subject of the movie is a family with two homosexual parents.

Die Hard is a graphic movie (containing at least as much profanity as the Birdcage) which features the violent killings of numerous people.

I'm not trying to argue the relative merits of either film, mind you. I'm not saying that either film is a great work of art (although "yippee kayay motherfucker" may be the greatest line ever penned for the screen). It is the fact that these two movies are deemed worthy of the same rating which boggles my mind.
For that matter, consider the example of "Southpark: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut." A cartoon that had to be cut to get the R rating, basically because of language and a huge animated clitoris. Of course, it had violence too, but that wasn't the killer (pardon the pun) because it was the same kind of violence they do on tv every week.

And you consider yourself a true gay?
Duh.

Dude, even if you don't go around shagging every good looking guy you see, doesn't mean you're not gay.

Duh.

Dude, even if you don't go around shagging every good looking guy you see, doesn't mean you're not gay.

What would be more telling is who you think about when you rub one out.

What would be more telling is who you think about when you rub one out.

I believe my periodical looking at handsome guy's asses and several gigs of gay porn on my hard drive are proof enough that I'm a poof. (pun! It rhymes!)

Again, just because I don't talk or dress funny, and don't spend half my time in nightclubs getting a different man in my bed every day doesn't mean I don't enjoy getting naked and frolicky with the man I love.

Will you sign up before or after they end discrimination against homosexuals?

And the award for most irrelevent coment in this thread goes to . . .

Uh..folks...the American military has accepted gays for quite a while now.

The official policy is "dont ask, dont tell".

". . . and if we find out later you're out on your ass."

That isn't acceptence.

Are you also for polygamists and bestialitists to be accepted in society?

In which society?
In muslim and mormon society polygamy is accepted, so your point is moot.

Please try to remember that not al the world accepts the same moral (or i should say moralistic) rules.

Er, I think of these things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine) when someone says U Boat...

Fine! Defend him then. ;)

Point is. People will tend to think of WWII when you mention U-Boat.

If I understand it correctly, the US army would be the employer in this case, right? I'm pretty certain that there are laws, even in the US, that make it illegal for an employer to enquire about a future employees sexual preferences, and to fire the employee on account of his/her sexuality.

Unfortunatly no. Some states have that writen into their state law but most do not and you can be fired simply for being gay. Hell in many states including some of them that are not allowed to fire you for being gay there is this concept of "at will employment" that in an Orwellian fasion means that your employer can fire you and not give any reason at all.

Ed Wood wasnt gay.

He just dug on womens clothes.

Psst. Transvestite.

trans‧ves‧tite  /trænsˈvɛstaɪt, trænz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trans-ves-tahyt, tranz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person, esp. a male, who assumes the dress and manner usually associated with the opposite sex.


Didn't say he was gay. ;)

He always joked that he wore a bra and panties at Tarawa.....

Unfortunatly no. Some states have that writen into their state law but most do not and you can be fired simply for being gay. Hell in many states including some of them that are not allowed to fire you for being gay there is this concept of "at will employment" that in an Orwellian fasion means that your employer can fire you and not give any reason at all.
Yep. The only thing in the employees' favor in those states is that if the employer doesn't give cause, it can't challenge unemployment benefits. Of course, they can come up with a bullshit excuse and you're still fucked.

And if they can't hold off until they aren't caught at home then how are they gonna hold off on a year long deployment?

Why should they have to "hold off" any more than a heterosexual?

Are you also for polygamists and bestialitists to be accepted in society?

And leatherneck is officialy out of any sembelnce of valid arguments.

Where is the moral difference between homosexuality, polygamy and bestiality?

If the poygamy involves consenting adults there is none. If it involves children or non-consenting adults then the difference is the lack of consent. Bestialty involves animals which are also incapable of giving consent. You'd think bigots would develop better arguments as often as we shoot this one down.

I'm pretty sure your post was in essence asking why gays shouldn't be allowed in the military and that post answers it.

There are no posts in this thread that answer the question in a satisfactory maner.

Heterosexuality actually has a productive purpose where as all the others don't.

Which has absolutly nothing to do with it's moral equivalency. Thank you for playing this round of stupid arguments from bigots.

Heterosexuality actually has a productive purpose where as all the others don't.

I reckon that polygamy has an even stronger reproductive purpose than monogamy...
Is being polygamist more moral because of that?

Do you see morality only as a child production thing? Saddening tought. :(

The question is not about whom you love and have sex with.

The question is whether ones you love and have sex with can be in your squad. It is much better to leave your beloved at home and be concerned with the war while on the frontline, not with sex.

It's not that I'm against gays in military, and I think gays practitioning homosexuality only when not on duty are OK. But restrictions to not having or attempting any sex with other soldiers are essential for normal functioning of the army.

So there should be seperate squads for female soldiers?

And leatherneck is officialy out of any sembelnce of valid arguments.

Yea, mabye if you looked back a bit you would see that it was an off-topic response to an off-topic point. It's still off-topic and not dropping it is called thread jacking. Were talking about the U.S. military, not society.

Why should they have to "hold off" any more than a heterosexual?

Post 115. Read what has already been said and stop repeating them verbatim.

Post 115. Read what has already been said and stop repeating them verbatim.

Well, the problem with that is... well, post 115 is utter wank.

If your worst nightmare, in a warzone, with casualties being inflicted every day, and a situation that is gradually turning into a full-on civil war, is that some dude might see your tackle... then you probably shouldn't be allowed to hold a gun.

And leatherneck is officialy out of any sembelnce of valid arguments.

And you have officially not offered any responses to any of my arguments.

Well, the problem with that is... well, post 115 is utter wank.

If your worst nightmare, in a warzone, with casualties being inflicted every day, and a situation that is gradually turning into a full-on civil war, is that some dude might see your tackle... then you probably shouldn't be allowed to hold a gun.

As an officer, it is my job to plan operations, carry out large scale operations, and maintain morale. Admitting gays into the military which 65% of my men would not want is not exactly making my job easier. Don't give me that black analogy. Those were different circumstances. There was a desperate necesity for that. In order to maintain order they had to make all black units. Are you suggesting that we make all homosexual units when homosexuals already serve in all units? I'm pretty sure that that is only hurting gays.

If the poygamy involves consenting adults there is none. If it involves children or non-consenting adults then the difference is the lack of consent. Bestialty involves animals which are also incapable of giving consent. You'd think bigots would develop better arguments as often as we shoot this one down.

First of all, you obviously haven't read any of my posts b/c i am clearly not supporting banning all gays from serving. Just making sure that they don't let their fellow servicemembers know b/c of the problems that it presents. Second, why don't you go do something w/ your life before u go calling me anything.

As an officer, it is my job to plan operations, carry out large scale operations, and maintain morale. Admitting gays into the military which 65% of my men would not want is not exactly making my job easier. Don't give me that black analogy. Those were different circumstances. There was a desperate necesity for that. In order to maintain order they had to make all black units. Are you suggesting that we make all homosexual units when homosexuals already serve in all units? I'm pretty sure that that is only hurting gays.

I think you are making half your response to someone else. I pointed out that your previous post was turgid bollocky-toss, I said nothing about segregating units.

The thing is - your unit has gay men in it now. Because you persecute them, you don't even know which ones they are.

What makes you think anyone wants to look at your junk, anyway?

I think you are making half your response to someone else. I pointed out that your previous post was turgid bollocky-toss, I said nothing about segregating units.

The thing is - your unit has gay men in it now. Because you persecute them, you don't even know which ones they are.

I am not persecuting them. I am trying to maintain the morale of my unit. If we do that against the will of the majority of the men then we appear to not have their best interest in mind. Then, every time we tell them to do something were doing it against their best interest.
What makes you think anyone wants to look at your junk, anyway?

OOO, good one:rolleyes:

I am not persecuting them. I am trying to maintain the morale of my unit. If we do that against the will of the majority of the men then we appear to not have their best interest in mind. Then, every time we tell them to do something were doing it against their best interest.


Arse. If you are treating homosexual men differently and adversely... and you are - it is built into the modern army... then you are persecuting them.

What if your unit doesn't want Jews? What if your unit doesn't want to go out in the mornings?

Morale is a factor - no one denies it - but it doesn't trump the chain of command. And, if you really think your job is about keeping a group of men happy, maybe you should consider your vocation into a field other than leadership.


OOO, good one:rolleyes:

That's your entire response? About what I expected.

It's not supposed to be a 'zinger'. In my experience, the guys who make the most fuss about the company of homosexuals, tend to be the most unprepossessing folks to start with. You find yourself thinking, "If I was gay, dude... the last person I'd want to nail would be you".

Not that I'm saying this is true of yourself. I've seen no pictures, and frankly don't care. But the fact remains... why be so paranoid about sleeping butt naked... are you that damn pretty?

So there should be seperate squads for female soldiers?
Aren't there de facto? Women as a rule are not allowed into actual combat teams.

I am not persecuting them. I am trying to maintain the morale of my unit. If we do that against the will of the majority of the men then we appear to not have their best interest in mind. Then, every time we tell them to do something were doing it against their best interest.

Wouldn't a better way to raise morale in the army be to serve better food?

Arse. If you are treating homosexual men differently and adversely... and you are - it is built into the modern army... then you are persecuting them.

What if your unit doesn't want Jews? What if your unit doesn't want to go out in the mornings?

Morale is a factor - no one denies it - but it doesn't trump the chain of command. And, if you really think your job is about keeping a group of men happy, maybe you should consider your vocation into a field other than leadership.


How can you compare that to them wanting to go out in the mornings? That is a necesary thing. You push them to do the things that a required for their jobs. There is no need to say that gays are allowed to declare their status. It can bring no good. If you were to make a chart on the pro's and con's of letting gays declare their status you would find that while there aren't many con's they certainly outweigh the pro's. Leadership isn't about doing things that hurt the group as a whole and gain very little for anyone.

Wouldn't a better way to raise morale in the army be to serve better food?

Are you kidding? Fucking pouges in a war zone get 3 hot, home cooked meals every day. It's ridiculous.

Are you kidding? Fucking pouges in a war zone get 3 hot, home cooked meals every day. It's ridiculous.

Pouges are also sometimes called hobbits, right? And yeah... I was joking around.

I am not persecuting them. I am trying to maintain the morale of my unit. If we do that against the will of the majority of the men then we appear to not have their best interest in mind. Then, every time we tell them to do something were doing it against their best interest.


OOO, good one:rolleyes:

And the best way to maintain morale is to CATER to prejudice? How does that help the moral of the people who KNOW how wrong it is to be so bigotted?

It is in the best interest of HUMANITY not to allow blatant prejudice to go unchecked.

And, on rereading some of your earlier posts, it is EXACTLY the same as when blacks were integrated into the armed services... and today, does that offend morale? And if it did, would you say "OK, men, whatever you want." or would you tell them to stop being asses?

Not to mention that participation in the armed services is NOT in the form of democracy. Any idiot who goes in thinking that you are looking out for his best interests has not really thought it out terribly clearly and probably hasn't worked out that he has signed up to be cannon fodder. And if he can't figure out the first time you send him into combat that you are not looking out for him, but for something you think is more important, then it really doesn't matter, does it, if you do the right thing in not allowing prejudice to run rampant? And if he is not an idiot, and signed up because he, too, believes that you are sending him into danger for something more important than himself, he should also realize that prejudice is wrong and should be one of the things to fight against. So your arguments SUPPORTING prejudice don't wash.

How can you compare that to them wanting to go out in the mornings? That is a necesary thing. You push them to do the things that a required for their jobs. There is no need to say that gays are allowed to declare their status. It can bring no good. If you were to make a chart on the pro's and con's of letting gays declare their status you would find that while there aren't many con's they certainly outweigh the pro's. Leadership isn't about doing things that hurt the group as a whole and gain very little for anyone.

How can I compare the two things? Because you seem to think it is okay to pander to the whims of a unit, if you happen to think the issue is icky. Acting like grown-ups, and standing shoulder to shoulder with EVERY other soldier, be he black, white, Yankee or Confederate, Jew, or Gentile... straight or gay. That doesn't sound like too much to ask from a group of men who have already pledged to put the needs of their nation before their own lives.

So which is it? Is the military there to cosset the phobias of it's men? Or are the men there to protect the interests of the nation, as the military dictates?

If you have to think about that question for more than a second, you might want to see if you can get a transfer to the band, or something.

And the best way to maintain morale is to CATER to prejudice? How does that help the moral of the people who KNOW how wrong it is to be so bigotted?
During war time, you have to do what you have to do to maintain your force. Gays in the military is not that big of a deal within the military until you start talking about it.

And, on rereading some of your earlier posts, it is EXACTLY the same as when blacks were integrated into the armed services... and today, does that offend morale? And if it did, would you say "OK, men, whatever you want." or would you tell them to stop being asses?
No it's really not. If we were to model the black integration into the military we would have to take polls on all current gays, take them out of their units, and place them in all gay units. If it was possible for us to hold off on integrating blacks until after WWII it would have been better b/c then there is less tension. However, that was not possible. Besides, it's not like the issue is integrating gays into the military. The issue is wether they should be allowed to state their status. I don't know about you but i see the military as an institution for winning wars, not being the fronteir of civil rights.

Not to mention that participation in the armed services is NOT in the form of democracy.
Exactly why there is reduced freedom of speech which is essentially the issue.
Any idiot who goes in thinking that you are looking out for his best interests has not really thought it out terribly clearly and probably hasn't worked out that he has signed up to be cannon fodder.
Wow if that isn't a peice of delusional shit i don't know what is. Where the fuck do you get cannon fodder from? And if he can't figure out the first time you send him into combat that you are not looking out for him, but for something you think is more important, then it really doesn't matter, does it, if you do the right thing in not allowing prejudice to run rampant? And if he is not an idiot, and signed up because he, too, believes that you are sending him into danger for something more important than himself, he should also realize that prejudice is wrong and should be one of the things to fight against. So your arguments SUPPORTING prejudice don't wash.

No, the first thing he should be fighting against is his enemy. Let lawyers and politicians fight prejudice.

So which is it? Is the military there to cosset the phobias of it's men? Or are the men there to protect the interests of the nation, as the military dictates?


No, it's not there to cosset the phobias of it's men. It is there to win wars. And if it does anything that could possible hurt its mission then it is not doing its job.

Pouges are also sometimes called hobbits, right? And yeah... I was joking around.

I've heard fobbit but not hobbit.

No, it's not there to cosset the phobias of it's men. It is there to win wars. And if it does anything that could possible hurt its mission then it is not doing its job.

Win wars? Too much of the Bush propoganda for you, my friend. Not every mission the military carries out is a matter of war.

Can a gay man shoot as well as a straight one? Defuse a bomb? Drive a tank?

Do the straight men go a-raping every time the lights go down? Why would the gay men?

Sexuality has nothing to do with 'the mission'. It is a personal crusade of certain elements, that has bugger all to do with how the military works, and everything to do with carrying on an agenda.

As for your flippant final riposte... I'd say sending men out in poorly armoured vehicles was more likely to cause harm, than the possibility that one of the guys might be slipping sly peeks at another one's pack.