NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

Oh, gosh, I dunno. How about: Iraq Coallition Casualty Count (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/), CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/), and, of course, many more?


*Edit* Sorry... this is way off the track of the thread. Let's drop this line and move back to the other.

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

Am i advocating eradication of gays from the military? No, i am just advocating the don't ask, don't tell policy.


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.
So basically, we fucked one thing so we might as well fuck everything else?

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.


Quoted for truth.

Oh, gosh, I dunno. How about: Iraq Coallition Casualty Count (http://www.icasualties.org/oif/), CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/), and, of course, many more?

Okay, so i serve for 19 months in 2 combat zones and lose two of my 183 men. Considering that all of my units were conducting combat patrols on a nearly daily basis i lost 1 marine every 285 days(both of my losses were on the same occasion and they both should have been given the medal of honor for their actions). I have personally taken a round in the chest from an insurgent sniper. I do not see how any of that leads you to believe that i use my men as cannon fodder.

Am i advocating eradication of gays from the military? No, i am just advocating the don't ask, don't tell policy.

A policy which has caused more homosexuals to be "eradicated" from the military than ever before. How about a "don't ask, don't get your undies in a knot if someone happens to be homosexual because 1 person in 10 is and there is nothing you can or need do about it anyway" policy?

So basically, we fucked one thing so we might as well fuck everything else?

No. DON'T fuck everything else. That is the point. Try doing something RIGHT.

A policy which has caused more homosexuals to be "eradicated" from the military than ever before.

Where the hell do u get that little statistical tid bit from? Ever before? I'm pretty sure that it is a lot more liberal than it has been in the past. It's not that hard, don't tell anyone in the military that you are gay.

No. DON'T fuck everything else. That is the point. Try doing something RIGHT.

That is right in your POV. But in the end, your opinion means shit.

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

I think the best way would be to provide people what they want as long as they do their job, and let them decide how to do it and how to live. Pretty much like a muslim shouldn't demand a church to provide demands of his faith.

After all, it is already a very hard, dirty, dangerous, unpleasant, and unrewarding job of a kind not many people would agree to do, and they shouldn't be ordered around in every aspect of their life by people sitting in comfortable armchairs in conditioned rooms. It's enough that they tell them what job to do; telling around how to do it would be way too much.

No. DON'T fuck everything else. That is the point. Try doing something RIGHT.

Quoted for truth.

Am i advocating eradication of gays from the military? No, i am just advocating the don't ask, don't tell policy.


Because it was SUCH a big deal, beforehand?

Previosuly, you had homosexuals in your unit, and you knew who they were, so you knew whether to feel paranoid about someone checking you out. Now, you've forced them to hide it... so now you STILL have homosexuals in your unit, and now they wait until you are asleep to beat off looking at you.

Because you are that damn pretty.


So basically, we fucked one thing so we might as well fuck everything else?

One thing? ONE thing? Please tell me they don't let you do anything important, or handle anything sharp.

I'm wondering how you think allowing people to be comfortable with the gender orientation would be 'fucking' anything, anyway...?

Where the hell do u get that little statistical tid bit from? Ever before? I'm pretty sure that it is a lot more liberal than it has been in the past. It's not that hard, don't tell anyone in the military that you are gay.


What about Jewish? Is it okay to tell people you are a Jew? I mean - you wouldn't want to hurt their little feelings now, knowing they were sharing a hot, sweaty bunkroom (seriously - I think you are aiming for the sleazy porn element there) with Jews, now would you?


That is right in your POV. But in the end, your opinion means shit.

But yours is plated in gold?

Because it was SUCH a big deal, beforehand?

Previosuly, you had homosexuals in your unit, and you knew who they were, so you knew whether to feel paranoid about someone checking you out. Now, you've forced them to hide it... so now you STILL have homosexuals in your unit, and now they wait until you are asleep to beat off looking at you.

Because you are that damn pretty.
I already told you why i stand where i do. I stand there because it damages morale no matter how small an amount for no reason at all.



One thing? ONE thing? Please tell me they don't let you do anything important, or handle anything sharp.
They put me directly in charge of a total of 183 men so far. And you know what, i've been more successful in that than you have been at anything in your entire life.
I'm wondering how you think allowing people to be comfortable with the gender orientation would be 'fucking' anything, anyway...?
How is allowing people to say that they are gay making other people more comfortable w/ gender orientation. You still have yet to make a point about how doing this would help the militaries mission.

What about Jewish? Is it okay to tell people you are a Jew? I mean - you wouldn't want to hurt their little feelings now, knowing they were sharing a hot, sweaty bunkroom (seriously - I think you are aiming for the sleazy porn element there) with Jews, now would you?

Yes it is okay to tell people that you are a jew. There are not mass predjuduces in the military against jews. Civilians pave the way for civil rights and the military catches up when it's not busy fighting a war.

But yours is plated in gold?

No, but it holds some weight b/c there is a bit of power behind it.

Where the hell do u get that little statistical tid bit from? Ever before? I'm pretty sure that it is a lot more liberal than it has been in the past. It's not that hard, don't tell anyone in the military that you are gay.

That is right in your POV. But in the end, your opinion means shit.

Speaking as someone who was in the military through the 1980s into the early 1990s, it's true. Clinton's policy threw more gays out in a couple of years than had been thrown out since the inception of the US military.

Speaking as someone who was in the military through the 1980s into the early 1990s, it's true. Clinton's policy threw more gays out in a couple of years than had been thrown out since the inception of the US military.

Even now it goes on. I remember reading(or seeing) somewhere that an Arab Cryptolinguist was tossed for being gay.

I guess we didn't need them. :rolleyes:

Speaking as someone who was in the military through the 1980s into the early 1990s, it's true. Clinton's policy threw more gays out in a couple of years than had been thrown out since the inception of the US military.

After crunching the numbers (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell) and the figure of 880,000 soldiers being recruited during the past 11 years. .28% of all the recruited soldiers in the army were kicked b/c of dadt. Wash out rate for boot is higher than that.

Because you are that damn pretty.

Yes, yes I am. :D

_______________________________

I don't by the 'zomg homophobia" argument. If they actually hated homosexuals, they'd led them serve in the front lines.

I mean, really, if I was a commander, and I hated homosexuals, I'd let them serve in segregated brigades and send them on suicide missions to be brutally slaughtered.

It makes sense to me, anyways.

But yours is plated in gold?

Mine's covered with Francium. :p

I already told you why i stand where i do. I stand there because it damages morale no matter how small an amount for no reason at all.


And I say you are talking out of your arse. I say gender orientation has little or nothing to do with morale. I say, it is GOOD for morale to have a spectre to fight, a common enemy... and the military ahs chosen the homosexual orientation as the new red-under-the-bed.

And you are buying into it.


They put me directly in charge of a total of 183 men so far. And you know what, i've been more successful in that than you have been at anything in your entire life.


You'd know that, would you?

You said you got two of your men killed. I've never got anyone killed. I figure I'm two-nil up on you, so far.


How is allowing people to say that they are gay making other people more comfortable w/ gender orientation. You still have yet to make a point about how doing this would help the militaries mission.

People become comfortable with things through exposure. They certainly aren't going to become MORE comfortable with homosexuals in the military, by pretending they don't exist.

You still have yet to make a point about how persecution of homosexuals helps the 'military's mission'. All you've spilled so far is the same old verbal incontinence about 'morale'. You know the classical Greek army encouraged same-sex liaisons, because a man is more likely to take extraordinary pains to protect his neighbour if he is closely bonded to him?

Yes it is okay to tell people that you are a jew. There are not mass predjuduces in the military against jews. Civilians pave the way for civil rights and the military catches up when it's not busy fighting a war.


Tough shit. Get over it. The rest of America has to deal with civil rights WHILE there is a war on, and all the other crap that everyday brings. We didn't just get to say "Hell, let's burn the Jews, because a plane flew into New York". Because it is NEVER okay to carry out a homophobic/racist/sexist agenda, no matter what else is going on.

We go back a few years, when Blacks were persona non grata in the military... was it 'okay' then? Because there was a war?

Don't-ask-Don't-tell is the new McCarthyism. And, worse, it is not only pandering to the basest prejudices of the common man, but promoting it as though it were laudable.


No, but it holds some weight b/c there is a bit of power behind it.

Because you are a big man with a gun? Opinions are like assholes... everyone has one. Yours ain't no better than anyone elses, just because you got fancy pants.

And I say you are talking out of your arse. I say gender orientation has little or nothing to do with morale. I say, it is GOOD for morale to have a spectre to fight, a common enemy... and the military ahs chosen the homosexual orientation as the new red-under-the-bed.

And you are buying into it.
Okay, you are just proving my point by giving positive effects on the military of the policy.




You said you got two of your men killed. I've never got anyone killed. I figure I'm two-nil up on you, so far.
I didn't say that i got anyone killed. If you really want to know what happen then tg me but otherwise i'd rather not talk about it.


People become comfortable with things through exposure. They certainly aren't going to become MORE comfortable with homosexuals in the military, by pretending they don't exist.

You still have yet to make a point about how persecution of homosexuals helps the 'military's mission'. All you've spilled so far is the same old verbal incontinence about 'morale'. You know the classical Greek army encouraged same-sex liaisons, because a man is more likely to take extraordinary pains to protect his neighbour if he is closely bonded to him?
Then the greeks were idiots. You don't need to have sex w/ someone to be close to them.

Tough shit. Get over it. The rest of America has to deal with civil rights WHILE there is a war on, and all the other crap that everyday brings. We didn't just get to say "Hell, let's burn the Jews, because a plane flew into New York". Because it is NEVER okay to carry out a homophobic/racist/sexist agenda, no matter what else is going on.

We go back a few years, when Blacks were persona non grata in the military... was it 'okay' then? Because there was a war?
To introduce something completely knew to an extremely focused organization is not productive in the least. Again, we needed black soldiers then so it was a good choice to end the predjuduce then.

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 am going to upturn everything you just said.

EXAMPLE: The US Navy. Esspecaily the submarines.:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Okay, you are just proving my point by giving positive effects on the military of the policy.


No, I'm disproving your point, if anything. I'm showing that there is no negative morale aspect to homosexuality, but there is a lowest-common-denominator appeal to racial, ideological or 'sexual' hate.


I didn't say that i got anyone killed. If you really want to know what happen then tg me but otherwise i'd rather not talk about it.


Don't talk about it, then. You brought it up. If you are going to claim your superiority over others (blind, I might add... people for whom you have NO history), you better be willing to line up against them.

The way I see it, if you are the 'boss', you are responsible for your men. If they get killed on your watch, that's your responsibility.


Then the greeks were idiots. You don't need to have sex w/ someone to be close to them.

The Greek may have been idiots. It has to be said, though... it seemed to work for them.

As an aside... wouldn't you say you were 'close' with people you'd had 'intimacy' with? Are you married? Would you think a wife was someone you'd be more likely to take a bullet for, than a neighbour?

To introduce something completely knew to an extremely focused organization is not productive in the least. Again, we needed black soldiers then so it was a good choice to end the predjuduce then.

Don't-ask-Don't-tell was 'completely new'. So - not productive in the least, by your argument, yes?

And, the best reason you can think of for integrating blacks... is that we needed bums-on-seats?

Don't talk about it, then. You brought it up. If you are going to claim your superiority over others (blind, I might add... people for whom you have NO history), you better be willing to line up against them.

The way I see it, if you are the 'boss', you are responsible for your men. If they get killed on your watch, that's your responsibility.

tg

The Greek may have been idiots. It has to be said, though... it seemed to work for them.
And this seems to work for us.

As an aside... wouldn't you say you were 'close' with people you'd had 'intimacy' with? Are you married? Would you think a wife was someone you'd be more likely to take a bullet for, than a neighbour?
Yeah, i am married and i have to say that at times i seem to know some of my marines a bit better than her.

Don't-ask-Don't-tell was 'completely new'. So - not productive in the least, by your argument, yes?

And, the best reason you can think of for integrating blacks... is that we needed bums-on-seats?

We needed troops. The change would have been smoother if carried out during peace time. You can't deny that. We wouldn't have had to make segregated units.

I am going to upturn everything you just said.

EXAMPLE: The US Navy. Esspecaily the submarines.:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Hahaha. That was good.

Damn, I made this topic, what, few days ago, come back and WHAM, 19 pages. Phew I love NSG. Anyhow to the guy who asked if Im going to join the army I'm actually considering the marines though I doubt I'll join. Time will tell.

tg


tg


And this seems to work for us.


But, there are those who would say it was working just as well, maybe better, before?


Yeah, i am married and i have to say that at times i seem to know some of my marines a bit better than her.

Who would you take a bullet for? First? If you had to choose?

We needed troops. The change would have been smoother if carried out during peace time. You can't deny that. We wouldn't have had to make segregated units.

We kind of need troops, now. This constant redeployment is killing morale far worse than the "5th Armoured, Gay and Proud" ever would...

The point is - we shouldn't be discriminating based on who a soldier feels romantically entangled with. We shouldn't be asking. But we shouldn't be caring if they be telling, either. Judge a man on his merits. No?

Civilians pave the way for civil rights and the military catches up when it's not busy fighting a war.

I think I could sign under this.

Yes, I support civil rights, including feminism, racial equality gay rights, and other. But I feel individual freedom to be above them. If this club wants to be for gentlemen only, let it stay this way; don't enforce them to accept ladies. If this group wants to be black-only or white-only, let it be this way. If another one wants to be gay-only or straight-only, let them stay this way. Don't force them. These guys have work to do, and they are doing it. It is for them to decide in what company to do it.


You want to promote rights of specific group? Fine. Take your company and promote the rights. If you are the government, introduce incentives to introduce these rights for others. Do not enforce. It is totalitarism.

When the civilian society reaches required level of equality, the military will pick up the proven ideas themselves. For instance, they will recruit everyone if they feel shortage. The military is a tool for influencing external affairs, and not internal ones. There are 200 millions of jobs where you can promote any ideas; leave this million to do their job. A dedicated tool is more effective than a multitool, and if you tell army around about everything it will become a multitool. Let the civilian society influence army, because it can, and don't try to use army to influence civilians.

I think I could sign under this.

Yes, I support civil rights, including feminism, racial equality gay rights, and other. But I feel individual freedom to be above them. If this club wants to be for gentlemen only, let it stay this way; don't enforce them to accept ladies. If this group wants to be black-only or white-only, let it be this way. If another one wants to be gay-only or straight-only, let them stay this way. Don't force them. These guys have work to do, and they are doing it. It is for them to decide in what company to do it.


You want to promote rights of specific group? Fine. Take your company and promote the rights. If you are the government, introduce incentives to introduce these rights for others. Do not enforce. It is totalitarism.

When the civilian society reaches required level of equality, the military will pick up the proven ideas themselves. For instance, they will recruit everyone if they feel shortage. The military is a tool for influencing external affairs, and not internal ones. There are 200 millions of jobs where you can promote any ideas; leave this million to do their job. A dedicated tool is more effective than a multitool, and if you tell army around about everything it will become a multitool. Let the civilian society influence army, because it can, and don't try to use army to influence civilians.

But the army isn't some 'company'... it is, maybe more than any other institution, 'The People'. Government shouldn't be discriminatory, because government is supposed to represent.. to be 'the people'. And that means all of the people... not just a select voter demographic. Similarly with the military. No - especially with the military! Anyone whom is willing to put their life on the line for what this country is supposed to stand for, deserves the opportunity to do so... and deserves the same respect and treatment that is accorded to every other candidate.

But the army isn't some 'company'... it is, maybe more than any other institution, 'The People'. Government shouldn't be discriminatory, because government is supposed to represent.. to be 'the people'. And that means all of the people... not just a select voter demographic. Similarly with the military. No - especially with the military! Anyone whom is willing to put their life on the line for what this country is supposed to stand for, deserves the opportunity to do so... and deserves the same respect and treatment that is accorded to every other candidate.

Army is a force doing their job, nothing more. Paid service in paid wars. They fight them in their way... Oh, well. I see. Yes, it's probably true, gays should have opportunity to take that job as well. I see a fitting answer like creating Civil Rights Gay Corps (CRGC). Or, maybe, something like that. Just wonder if this won't make the situation even worse.

Just waiting until the Army catches up would be better.

And this seems to work for us.


Does it? The Greeks ended the Persian Empire and marched through to central asia.

What's been our great victories in the last 60 years?

ehhh... I was too lazy read everything, but I can provide information:

http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/

http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/PublicationsHome.htm

The entire site is dedicated to breaking the old myths of allowing sexual minorities in the military; through extensive research of various militaries around the globe who have broken down the barriers. They are in fact doing fine. Homosexuals are human beings and do everything that people can do.

The fact is, you can't deny someone the right to serve for one's country. Its a violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights' article 22 I believe? Somewhere around there, check me up on that, I KNOW its says it around that declaration

Its a charter the U.S. ratified. To deny someone those rights effectively makes them secondclass citizens without the same rights or privilages as everyone else. Its unfair... its unjust.

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

And person with the opinion that they can not serve with a homosexual is not only an egomaniac to think that they would automaticly be desired

But they are a homophobe

If your conviction to serve your country is so weak that serving with other qualified but gay personel turns you away you dont belong in the military

And person with the opinion that they can not serve with a homosexual is not only an egomaniac to think that they would automaticly be desired

But they are a homophobe

If your conviction to serve your country is so weak that serving with other qualified but gay personel turns you away you dont belong in the military

The funny thing is, most heteros have no idea who the gays really are. It's not like it's tattooed on the back of their necks, and the stereotype doesn't work as an identifier.

And person with the opinion that they can not serve with a homosexual is not only an egomaniac to think that they would automaticly be desired

But they are a homophobe

If your conviction to serve your country is so weak that serving with other qualified but gay personel turns you away you dont belong in the military
The funny thing is, most heteros have no idea who the gays really are. It's not like it's tattooed on the back of their necks, and the stereotype doesn't work as an identifier.

And the homosexually oriented person that wants to serve in the military is now likely serving already.

Thus, the overall outcome of throwing out all sexual behavior rules form the UCMJ might actually decrease the total number of enlistees. Whether or not you approve of them is the exact same situation we have now. One group not liking the other, and you not liking the group that doesn't like you... what is the difference?

If one group has a total possible number of not more than 4% of the total population of American youth, and the other has a potential to be the remaining 96% the military recruiting strategists would be silly to favor the 4% until the society as a whole was ready to back the 4% in superior numbers.

And the homosexually oriented person that wants to serve in the military is now likely serving already.

Thus, the overall outcome of throwing out all sexual behavior rules form the UCMJ might actually decrease the total number of enlistees. Whether or not you approve of them is the exact same situation we have now. One group not liking the other, and you not liking the group that doesn't like you... what is the difference?

If one group has a total possible number of not more than 4% of the total population of American youth, and the other has a potential to be the remaining 96% the military recruiting strategists would be silly to favor the 4% until the society as a whole was ready to back the 4% in superior numbers.

Not neerly as silly as thoes 96 percent that have issue with the 40 percent

If they have issue with homosexuals they are not fit to serve one way or another ... they need to get over themselfs and move on to doing their job

I would say the same thing to thoes that would not join cause of any reason race religion beliefs of any sort

We should be reducing the amount we pander to these people rather then institutionalizing it

Not neerly as silly as thoes 96 percent that have issue with the 40 percent

If they have issue with homosexuals they are not fit to serve one way or another ... they need to get over themselfs and move on to doing their job

But that's just it, it's not 40%, it closer to 4%. IF the population of homosexually inclined people was anywhere near 40% that would be a predominate party, a vast multitude that could force their will on the rest of this fickle population in every vote and election everywhere for years to come.

If you doubt my numbers of 4%, for homosexually oriented people, I suggest you remember how African Americans (for example) vote, they vote 90% in favor on one party, and yet they represent only 10% of the total population. Thus, their affect is 9% of the total vote goes into their favor. IF you think there is more than 1 homosexual vote (or enlistee) for every 2 African Americans votes (or enlistees) I would like to see what evidence you have to suggest such a thing. That would be astronomically large in my opinion.

I would say the same thing to thoes that would not join cause of any reason race religion beliefs of any sort

We should be reducing the amount we pander to these people rather then institutionalizing it

Reducing the numbers we disagree with? Are you sure? Right now you are likely to be in the minority, under such a doctrine, you would be eliminated before you had the chance to influence future voters to your side of the issue.

I think rather, it is better to vote how we feel, and keep open all possible forms of recruitment and public forums for expression of idea and freedom of speech so that all people are permitted to try and sway future public opinion to match their opinion.

their already being called homophobes for not allowing gays in.

you have to create seperate fancilities for them. like showers.

you have to create seperate fancilities for them. like showers.

What a ridiculous waste of money.

Haha...maybe it's because I'm so tired right now...but I have one of those moments where most of your brain isn't working and you can look at everything from the outside and only see what it is, without all the usual connotations.

Has anyone ever realised how incredibly random it is to exclude people from military service because of who they want to have sex with?

Haha...maybe it's because I'm so tired right now...but I have one of those moments where most of your brain isn't working and you can look at everything from the outside and only see what it is, without all the usual connotations.

Has anyone ever realised how incredibly random it is to exclude people from military service because of who they want to have sex with?

I'm just waiting for the order saying only men with curly hair are allowed serve.

This has probably already been mentioned, but the policy of the American Military is "Don't ask, don't tell." They will never inquire into a person's sexuality, so gays are completely free to join the armed forces... sort of.

The issue is that you aren't allowed to get caught doing anything that would clearly identify you as a homosexual. That includes things like kissing a person of the same sex, and even attending a gay pride parade. (BTW, my family used to go to gay pride festivals frequently. None of us were gay. The military can be so backwards sometimes.)

Anyway, the practical result of this policy is that, if you're gay, you can't join the military unless you're still in the closet and you're willing to stay there for another eight years. So essentially, they make it sound like they are open to homosexuals, but in reality their policies make it very difficult and stressful, at best, for a gay to join the service.

I'm just waiting for the order saying only men with curly hair are allowed serve.
That would be a fairly odd order, considering that most guys in the military get buzz cuts. Curliness is kind of irrelevant when your hair is that short.

But again, the military can be very backward.

This has probably already been mentioned, but the policy of the American Military is "Don't ask, don't tell." They will never inquire into a person's sexuality, so gays are completely free to join the armed forces... sort of.

The issue is that you aren't allowed to get caught doing anything that would clearly identify you as a homosexual. That includes things like kissing a person of the same sex, and even attending a gay pride parade. (BTW, my family used to go to gay pride festivals frequently. None of us were gay. The military can be so backwards sometimes.)

Anyway, the practical result of this policy is that, if you're gay, you can't join the military unless you're still in the closet and you're willing to stay there for another eight years. So essentially, they make it sound like they are open to homosexuals, but in reality their policies make it very difficult and stressful, at best, for a gay to join the service.
Wow, you really fail at reading the thread. Delete the post, then read the thread, then post if you have something to say.
That would be a fairly odd order, considering that most guys in the military get buzz cuts. Curliness is kind of irrelevant when your hair is that short.

But again, the military can be very backward.

Clearly since it thinks gays will somehow ruin morale.

And the homosexually oriented person that wants to serve in the military is now likely serving already.

Thus, the overall outcome of throwing out all sexual behavior rules form the UCMJ might actually decrease the total number of enlistees. Whether or not you approve of them is the exact same situation we have now. One group not liking the other, and you not liking the group that doesn't like you... what is the difference?

If one group has a total possible number of not more than 4% of the total population of American youth, and the other has a potential to be the remaining 96% the military recruiting strategists would be silly to favor the 4% until the society as a whole was ready to back the 4% in superior numbers.Well, considering that DK mentioned that the people disliking them are in an even smaller minority, it might be better to allow gays to enlist and kick out homophobes.

Wow, you really fail at reading the thread. Delete the post, then read the thread, then post if you have something to say.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11723346&postcount=24
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11723345&postcount=25
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11723347&postcount=27
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11723361&postcount=30

4 posts that referance the "don't ask don't tell" policy. Looks like you missed those.

Anyway, unless you're a mod or the OP you have no place to tell me my post is off topic.

What a ridiculous waste of money.

i was just saying thats thier reason for not allowing gays in the army. straight wont like the idea of showering with gays.

i was just saying thats thier reason for not allowing gays in the army. straight wont like the idea of showering with gays.

So should we segregate highschool gym class into homosexuals/non homosexuals too?

So should we segregate highschool gym class into homosexuals/non homosexuals too?

in my school, we didnt shower after p.e. not by choice.

in my school, we didnt shower after p.e. not by choice.

You either had an easy PE class or you all walked around smelling … cause as much as I disliked the shower it WAS necessary

Not to mention swimming … with the chlorine in the pool is was required to take a shower.

the bus left 5 mins after p.e. ended. so no one showered. only once in my year, did anyone shower.
choice between being filthy and get home on time or be clean and wait for an extra hour. we would be all filthy in the bus anyway.

the bus left 5 mins after p.e. ended. so no one showered. only once in my year, did anyone shower.
choice between being filthy and get home on time or be clean and wait for an extra hour. we would be all filthy in the bus anyway.

Either way any adult who is worrying who is in the shower next to them maybe has too much time on their hands.

Like anything else suck it up take your shower and move on to more important things … just because there is a possible homosexual in the shower is no reason to freak out over

Army is a force doing their job, nothing more. Paid service in paid wars. They fight them in their way... Oh, well. I see. Yes, it's probably true, gays should have opportunity to take that job as well. I see a fitting answer like creating Civil Rights Gay Corps (CRGC). Or, maybe, something like that. Just wonder if this won't make the situation even worse.

Just waiting until the Army catches up would be better.

The Army isn't just a 'force doing a job' though... unless IBM now requires a lot more rigourous statement of dedication than I've ever heard of.

As for waiting for the Army to 'catch up' being better...? Why? Why is it not 'better' for the military to take the lead?

Does it? The Greeks ended the Persian Empire and marched through to central asia.

What's been our great victories in the last 60 years?

There was that kitten, stuck up a tree...

But that's just it, it's not 40%, it closer to 4%.

I don't believe your number, at all.

I've seen figures from .5% to 15% for the 'gay population'... and all of them ALWAYS run into the same problem - they are based on what people are willing to admit to total strangers.

So - ask the question in one group of company, you get one answer. Ask it in another, you get a different answer. Add to that, I know a lot of gauys who are NOT gay... but that see nothing wrong with a blowjob from another guy, or giving one in return. Apparently, having one of your buddies bust a loaf in your mouth doesn't count.

Add together all the people I've met, in various parts of the UK, in various states of the US... I'd say about half of the people I'v ever encountered have ADMITTED to some degree of 'gay experience'. A small percentage of those have considered themselves 'gay'.

i was just saying thats thier reason for not allowing gays in the army. straight wont like the idea of showering with gays.

And, if your biggest worry, in a warzone, is that someone is watching you soap your privates (pun intended), then you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun.

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

Post 115 is crap. And I read the threads one post at a time and reply the same way jackass.

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

Make an argument that isn't total crap.

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.

You're suporting a policy that has resulted, as others in this thread have mentioned in the loss of army staff with nessisary skills who have done nothing wrong.

Second, why don't you go do something w/ your life before u go calling me anything.

A: You don't want to be called a duck quit wadling and quacking.

B: What makes you think I haven't done something with my life?

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.

You have yet to demonstrate that it would hurt the group at all. Several people have posted how they either were known to be gay or knew that specific members of their squad were gay and that their groups morale was not harmed. It seems to me that the biggotry of you and your men is what is harming the group.

They put me directly in charge of a total of 183 men so far. And you know what, i've been more successful in that than you have been at anything in your entire life.

And again Leatherneck is out of valid points. Do you even personaly KNOW Grave Idle?

I've yet to see anybody offer a reason why homosexuals should be excluded or marginalized that goes beyond "gays make homophobes uncomfortable."

So what? Racists are made very uncomfortable when individuals of other ethnicities are treated with respect and dignity. Anti-semites are very uncomfortable serving with Jews. Why, pray tell, should any of us give a flying fuck about making bigots feel at home? Why should our military bend over backwards to coddle a bunch of homophobic little boys?

Why should we insult the vast majority of soldiers who are mature, honorable, and respectful, by imposing infantilizing policies that imply our soldiers are nothing but a gaggle of ill-mannered middle school students? Our soldiers are better than these bullshit homophobic policies.

You're suporting a policy that has resulted, as others in this thread have mentioned in the loss of army staff with nessisary skills who have done nothing wrong.



A: You don't want to be called a duck quit wadling and quacking.

B: What makes you think I haven't done something with my life?


Hehehe quit waddling, i like that ummm ohh hehe life, not wfie life. I was gonna ask you what you had done with your wife, but I won't bother now. In fact why am I still typeing ummmm?

And again Leatherneck is out of valid points. Do you even personaly KNOW Grave Idle?

We have tg'd each other and unlike you, he is capable of a civlized, rational debate. You completely do not understand my position. I want gays to be admitted freely in to the military, however, i do not think that wartime is the best time to do this.

A: You don't want to be called a duck quit wadling and quacking.
You want your life, shut the hell up (sorry mods)
B: What makes you think I haven't done something with my life?
tell me one thing that i would be impressed w/ and ill be surprised.

You want your life, shut the hell up (sorry mods)

tell me one thing that i would be impressed w/ and ill be surprised.

How exactly are you supposed to carry out that threat?

How exactly are you supposed to carry out that threat?

It gets my point across in the greatest way possible w/o being possible to be carried out so no one can get too offended.

It gets my point across in the greatest way possible w/o being possible to be carried out so no one can get too offended.

That has not stopped the mods from handing out a ban for it before (and I would not say there is NO possibility … just that it is not easy)

That has not stopped the mods from handing out a ban for it before (and I would not say there is NO possibility … just that it is not easy)

That's why i said sorry to the mods in the same sentence. Any way this is way off topic and is thread jacking so shhhh.

You want your life, shut the hell up (sorry mods)

LOL. You're funny, just like DK. I like you. :p Mods, don't delete him it's not like he can carry out the threat he doesn't know who I am or where I live.

tell me one thing that i would be impressed w/ and ill be surprised.

How about four years of working as an educational paraprofessional with special needs childern? That impresses me a lot more than killing people, after all a dog can do the later.

We have tg'd each other and unlike you, he is capable of a civlized, rational debate. You completely do not understand my position. I want gays to be admitted freely in to the military, however, i do not think that wartime is the best time to do this.

I'm capable of civalized rational debate as long as I'm debating civalized rational people. When I encounter a bigot on the other hand I tend to point and laugh, or I poke them untill they do something funny.

I'm capable of civalized rational debate as long as I'm debating civalized rational people. When I encounter a bigot on the other hand I tend to point and laugh, or I poke them untill they do something funny.

How am i a bigot? Would you agree that the moderate view is usually the most correct one b/c it tailors to both sides opinions? Let's look at the two extreme poles of this debate. Either ban all gays or allow all gays, right? My position is to allow gays but don't disrupt our military and their job to do that. That is as big as a compromise as i can think of.

How about four years of working as an educational paraprofessional with special needs childern? That impresses me a lot more than killing people, after all a dog can do the later.

Even if that was true i highly doubt that you are qualified for that job. Anyway, when you do that you are not putting your ass on the line to help people. You aren't pulling 20 hour shifts seven days a week for a year to make sure other people make it through the day and have a future.

Even if that was true i highly doubt that you are qualified for that job. Anyway, when you do that you are not putting your ass on the line to help people. You aren't pulling 20 hour shifts seven days a week for a year to make sure other people make it through the day and have a future.

Recently took the test to qualify under NCLB, I'm over qualifyed. 30 hours a day 5 days a week making sure 1-30 children (depending on the asignment) make it through the day and have future. I've worked with some kids where I thought I NEEDED some body armor. Been bitten, stabed, punched, kicked and had large heavy objects thrown at my head, but hey you're the one who's yelling at people who get off the topic so why don't you imitate one of the kids I've worked with and bite me.

Recently took the test to qualify under NCLB, I'm over qualifyed. 30 hours a day 5 days a week making sure 1-30 children (depending on the asignment) make it through the day and have future. I've worked with some kids where I thought I NEEDED some body armor. Been bitten, stabed, punched, kicked and had large heavy objects thrown at my head, but hey you're the one who's yelling at people who get off the topic so why don't you imitate one of the kids I've worked with and bite me.

And i've been shot. I make sure people live, you make sure people with little future can work at a grocery store and even then, most of your students won't ever be able to do that.

You want your life, shut the hell up (sorry mods)Apologies for flaming while doing it does not give a special dispensation, and are not accepted.

It gets my point across in the greatest way possible w/o being possible to be carried out so no one can get too offended.

Wrong. We take threats very seriously. Since you've admitted both to flaming and to threatening someone's life, you've lost your nation.

As for waiting for the Army to 'catch up' being better...? Why? Why is it not 'better' for the military to take the lead?

Because they have other things to do rather than test innovations in civil rights enforcement. It's better if ones less busy take the lead - and the army will catch up.

The army already has a compromise policy allowing anyone to serve. Knowing how to keep silent is also a part of army job.
If the Army implemented DADT policy towards NS players, leftists, knights who say "Ni", terrorist supporters, wiggers and wapanese, pinball players who can't get it up to satisfy their wives (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22players+of+3d+space+cadet+pinball+who+can%27t+get+it+up+to+satisfy+their+wives%22&btnG=Search), or any other group, obscure or not, I would not object it as well.

Apologies for flaming while doing it does not give a special dispensation, and are not accepted.



Wrong. We take threats very seriously. Since you've admitted both to flaming and to threatening someone's life, you've lost your nation.

I don't. I was the one threatened, don't I get some damn say in this? I was having fun with the funny little army man.

It gets my point across in the greatest way possible w/o being possible to be carried out so no one can get too offended.

You're using your own impotence as a debating tool now?

EDIT: Whoops. Talking to the void.

And i've been shot. I make sure people live, you make sure people with little future can work at a grocery store and even then, most of your students won't ever be able to do that.

Well, against MY wishes (and remember I was the one thretened) he was deleted, but to clear this up with everyone else there is a not insignifigant portion of the disabled children I work with who are capable of working on the same level as mainstream students and eventualy with the proper ocupational/physical therapy while they're in school working the same sort of jobs as anyone else. Just not the ones who bite me.

You're using your own impotence as a debating tool now?

EDIT: Whoops. Talking to the void.

Do you think that was Hannibal/Johnny Wad?

Well, against MY wishes (and remember I was the one thretened) he was deleted

It is the TOS, FAQ and OSRS, all developed with Max and the mod team, and not individuals' wishes that we enforce.

It is the TOS, FAQ and OSRS, all developed with Max and the mod team, and not individuals' wishes that we enforce.

I just think that as the one threatened I should have had some input, but enough thread jacking, back to how the army is staffed by homophobes.

I just think that as the one threatened I should have had some input, but enough thread jacking, back to how the army is staffed by homophobes.

I finally agree with you.=)