Gays in the Military

BIG_DAVE

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Posts
147
Media
9
Likes
122
Points
263
Location
Irish but living near London.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
from what I've seen from mates who are in, if you join the royal marines a straight man you'll come out bi.

On a side note, never play gay chicken with a royal marine as you will lose.
 

TurkeyWithaSunburn

Legendary Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
3,589
Media
25
Likes
1,226
Points
608
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You also obviously haven't been in the military.
Have you been in the military?

You make stupid assumptions about the military( Gangbangers and Rednecks)
And if some farmboy from the plains tells me his unit, HIS unit, is made up of rednecks and and gangbangers I'll take him at his word.

And you once again mention only physical differences. Being black is not the same as being gay. You cannot hide being black, you can hide being gay. They are fundamentally different. Sexual preference will never be equal in any way, shape, or form to a genetic appearance trait.
So you really are saying HIDE little homos. Don't say anything that might upset my delicate upbringing. I just don't know what I would do if you told me you're not who I thought you were.

And once again, a physical trait is much different than a sexual preference. One cannot stop being black, however one CAN stop engaging in homosexual sex.
And just because you say you're gay doesn't mean you are currently sexually active. :rolleyes:

The point is that I don't give a shit if everyone thinks they are a special little snowflake. You join the military I don't give a shit what you like to do or who you are. If you put yourself above the goals of the military YOU ARE WRONG. The military is not a social experiment. It does not have to be fair. It can and does except or deny whomever it determines capable or incapable of serving.

Well you do give a shit cuz you don't want to be around people who fuck up the ass. :rolleyes: And even then not everyone who is gay does anal, oral, or is even sexually active.

And how many fully capable, qualified people are being discharged each year, and being replaced by others who have been giving moral waivers and such? The military will do whatever the people in control tells it to.

Accept negroes (as they were called then), accept women (which has been happening), accept one armed left handed midgets (if congress wanted it to happen they would do it, grudgingly, but they would do it). And there are countless men who have joined the military to, "make a man" out of themself. Turns out they are great as a soldier, but they are still a big poofter afterall.

You use whatever resources you have at hand to accomplish a mission. You also failed to answer the question I asked about the stop/loss order being more important than getting rid of the dangerous homosexuals.

Jingoist, extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy. A telling, or an unfortunate coincidence of a username.
 
Last edited:

D_Eddie Withagun

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Posts
301
Media
0
Likes
19
Points
53
Jingoist, you can safely assume that most people here will view your responses as ..bullshit?

Your guilty until proven innocent stance is a straw-man in itself.

You say "until anyone can prove that allowing homosexuals to serve openly improves the effectiveness and lethality of the United States Military, then the current policy should remain in effect."

Lethality? Are you serious? With all the US Military has done in recent years, you are concerned with bolstering their LETHALITY? :mad:

Secondly, there are many modern armies that function well and do allow gays to openly serve.

Should armies that have, in recent years, removed DADT policies, and their ongoing success and progression, not be testament to the invalidity of DADT?

Furthermore, why do we have to PROVE anything? Why don't THEY prove that DADT HAS made things more effective? It hasn't. It never will.

Call us 'special snowflakes' but people are gonna stand up for what they believe.

We will be equal one day, and it's people like you who stand in our way. :mad:
 
Last edited:

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well you do give a shit cuz you don't want to be around people who fuck up the ass. :rolleyes: And even then not everyone who is gay does anal, oral, or is even sexually active.

And how many fully capable, qualified people are being discharged each year, and being replaced by others who have been giving moral waivers and such? The military will do whatever the people in control tells it to.

Accept negroes (as they were called then), accept women (which has been happening), accept one armed left handed midgets (if congress wanted it to happen they would do it, grudgingly, but they would do it). And there are countless men who have joined the military to, "make a man" out of themself. Turns out they are great as a soldier, but they are still a big poofter afterall.

You use whatever resources you have at hand to accomplish a mission. You also failed to answer the question I asked about the stop/loss order being more important than getting rid of the dangerous homosexuals.

Jingoist, extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy. A telling, or an unfortunate coincidence of a username.

Yes, I am in the military. So I know a thing or two about what works and what doesn't.

And if you even tried to educate yourself you would know that gays can serve in the military, there is nothing banning them, there is however rules on them serving openly and the sexual acts they may or may not perform. Technically no one in the military is allowed to perform oral or anal sex, will anyone ever be kicked out because of that? No.

People are removed or disbarred from joining for being openly gay.

Once again, what you heard and what actually happened are two completely different things. Were people given waivers? Yes, mostly for possession of marijuana. Other than that, waivers for anything are given out sparingly and only in incredible rare circumstances.

Blacks have served in every American conflict. They were not fully integrated until Vietnam because it would have degraded the effectiveness of the military. Not because they were less than whites, not because they couldn't fight, but because there was even a small chance of it degrading the effectiveness of the military. This is the same reason women aren't allowed Combat units. The addition of a female in that environment does nothing to improve that unit. In fact most will tell you the addition of females has had a negative impact in almost all aspects of the military. I picked my job knowing I wouldn't have to deal with females under my direct command. Not because I'm sexist, not because I think some females aren't capable, but because I know that the overall effect is negative.

Like I said, I know gay people serve. I know gay people in the military. I personally don't give a shit.

Where are you getting this dangerous homosexual shit? Or stuff about stop loss? Was this an individual experience? I need more background information.

I'm not saying homosexuals don't make great soldiers. Someones sexual preference has no bearing on what they are capable of as a soldier. However I am not that naive to think this will do more good than harm.

As stated before, integration of females is and will always be a huge problem. Commanders have to deal with relationships, females getting pregnant, sexual harassment, accusations of rape. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly it is a whole layer of trouble commanders will have to deal with. Which ones again, degrades the combat effectiveness of the military.
 

D_Harry_Crax

Account Disabled
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
4,447
Media
0
Likes
994
Points
228
Sexuality
No Response
Anyone who thinks taking a cock up one's ass makes him less manly apparently has never had a big cock up his ass. I say: you try it! (A man also shouldn't think women are weaker until he also has given birth to a child!) :)
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Jingoist, you can safely assume that most people here will view your responses as ..bullshit?

Your guilty until proven innocent stance is a straw-man in itself.

You say "until anyone can prove that allowing homosexuals to serve openly improves the effectiveness and lethality of the United States Military, then the current policy should remain in effect."

Lethality? Are you serious? With all the US Military has done in recent years, you are concerned with bolstering their LETHALITY? :mad:

Secondly, there are many modern armies that function well and do allow gays to openly serve.

Should armies that have, in recent years, removed DADT policies, and their ongoing success and progression, not be testament to the invalidity of DADT?

Furthermore, why do we have to PROVE anything? Why don't THEY prove that DADT HAS made things more effective? It hasn't. It never will.

Call us 'special snowflakes' but people are gonna stand up for what they believe.

We will be equal one day, and it's people like you who stand in our way. :mad:

I don't really care what people who have never served in the military think about how the military should be run.

That isn't a strawman argument. Not even close. In fact it is a logical argument.

You made a statement: Gays should be able to serve openly in the military.
I asked a question: Why? How does that improve the military?

You failed to answer it.

Yes, I want to increase the lethality. The more lethal my men are the more of them get to come back home. Or do you view the military as just another public service? a 9-5 job? Well I'm going to tell you it isn't. It is a way of life. Our mission is to kill the enemies of the United States. Pure and simple.


I can't prove that. That is an illogical argument. How can I prove something has been effective when the alternative hasn't been tested. But likewise, give me one reason as to why allowing homosexual to serve openly increases the effectiveness of the military.

EVERY military on Earth seeks to emulate the United States military. We are the best. No one is modeling their Army off of anyone one else. Even European countries have remodeled their forces to mimic our structure. They use our manuals, tactics, strategies and weapons. We are the best because we have rules and standards, our goal isn't to please people. It isn't to give people employment or money for college. It is to kill our enemies.

You are equal. You enjoy the same rights as I do.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Anyone who thinks taking a cock up one's ass makes him less manly apparently has never had a big cock up his ass. I say: you try it! (A man also shouldn't think women are weaker until he also has given birth to a child!) :)

Only stating the historical perspective.
 

B_RedDude

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
1,929
Media
0
Likes
87
Points
183
Location
California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Then why do some so many of these others allow gay folks to serve openly?

EVERY military on Earth seeks to emulate the United States military. We are the best. No one is modeling their Army off of anyone one else. Even European countries have remodeled their forces to mimic our structure. They use our manuals, tactics, strategies and weapons. We are the best because we have rules and standards, our goal isn't to please people.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
There is, and should be, a critical difference between the civilian world and the military.

Individual vs. group/team.

Our American culture exalts, or at least used to in the important ways, the individual over the group. Our constitution limits the group and what it can do (though socialism has greatly eroded those protections) and spells out rights of the individual that the group cannot violate.

In most of civilian society, your individualism is not greatly compromised. We have worked hard at creating and encouraging group structures that foster equal opportunity, regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. Most jobs can be done whether you are Black, White, Male, Female, Straight or Homosexual.

The military is a different story and must remain different if it is to do its best. The military can be likened to a team sport where the needs of the individual become secondary to the needs of the team. With one important difference. A team sport doesn't put its players in a position where they get killed on a regular basis.

The individual perspective on a job and a career looks at opportunity, advancement and eventually retirement. Are the opportunities for employment, promotion and the retirement benefits the same for all individuals? In most civilian occupations, those issues are not in conflict with performance and success of the corporation.

The military is, and must be different. And this is the problem. Society looks at military service as just another job. A career. And therefore, opportunities, promotions, and retirement benefits and goals are supposed to be equal for everyone. The rights and goals of the individual are elevated above those of the team. And that is the problem. The team goals and needs are distinctly different and if they don't trump those of the individual in necessary areas, the result is degradation of the military's capabilities. Degrade them a little and the mission suffers. It costs more in men and material to accomplish and in some cases, maybe it can't be done. Degrade them too much and then battles aren't lost, wars are lost. And maybe you end up being somebody's bitch!

In my not very humble opinion, what needs to be said, very strongly (and won't in this administration) is the purpose of the military. Our military's purpose is to defend the United States and its citizens, and impose our political will on others at the direction of our leaders. It is a career only for those who voluntarily subordinate their own individual aspirations to the needs of the group/team/military/state. There is opportunity, promotion and retirement available, but if the primary missions of the military are to be met, they can't be equally available to all. You can talk all you want about how being gay was no big deal in the Greek or Roman armies. Big deal. We aren't Greek or Roman. We are American. Greeks and Romans didn't have women in their military, nor did women have the societal rights of men. So why is it valid to pick out one aspect of their cultures and call them superior to ours and not the others?

Don't ask, don't tell, allows the maintenance of a certain illusion that promotes the group's goals. If a gay man wishes to serve his country and risk his life, maintaining a facade of being straight keeps the group cohesion. If a gay guy is admiring my junk or ass and neither I nor anyone else can see/notice it, how am I harmed? The answer is, I'm not. The falling tree didn't make any noise. On the other hand, for the same reason we separate men and women in the military, putting members of a group in close proximity to the group they find sexually attractive creates problems. Especially when the target group doesn't like it! And the fact is, there is no practical solution unless you throw out all restrictions and issues. More on that later.

If you put all straight men/women in a shower together, there is no friction. They don't want each other. Put in an openly lesbian or gay man and you have problems. Some straight individuals simply won't care. Their attitude is don't come on to me and we're fine. Another group is uncomfortable, but don't come on to me and we'll tolerate it. Continuing down the scale, others will be uncomfortable and don't consider it tolerable. And finally, you'll get a group who will see a come on when none was there and will be offended, maybe even violently.

So do you create a third accommodation? Put all the gays and lesbians together separate from the straights? I'm talking showers, sleeping and restroom facilities. This doesn't work either. Remember, males and females were separated in the first place because of the sexual tensions, desires, etc. Putting a bunch of gays together creates the situation you were trying to avoid in the first place.

If you continue this all logically, you come to three possible choices. 1) An all male, all straight military. This is the traditional, historical pattern. It has the advantage that it has been proven to work. 2) An all female, all straight military. It has never been tried, so you can't say it has never worked, but from a pure numbers point of view, we don't have the population base to get the required number of female volunteers, physically capable or not. 3) A mixed military. Male, female, openly straight or gay, with no accommodations for gender or sexual preference. Uni-sex everything. Showers, berthing, jobs, etc. This might work, but it is untested and unproven. It is popular with science fiction. And it goes against our societal norms, though that may be changing. At one time, coed dorms were a huge scandal. Now they are common. On the other hand, how many parents are going to be encouraging of their children joining a military where there is complete integration of all genders? How many women are going to want to join the military, knowing they'll be in barracks with men, sharing bathrooms, showers, etc?

I'm a historian. Which means you don't just study events, you study people. Machines behave logically (most of the time), people don't. Or more to the point, they generally behave like people in their society. If you don't understand that society and it's differences from you own, then you can't really understand why they did what they did, or what they will do in the future. It is pretty common in many parts of Europe today to have topless or nude beaches and kids are exposed to nudity at earlier and earlier ages. In that context, it is an easier transition to mixing facilities in the military and to a large extent, in many European countries, they have integrated to a much greater level in than in the US. And apparently successfully, though that apparent success may be just a lack of news over here. I say apparent, because they haven't really been tested militarily. No country in Europe has really fought a war since WWII and all the changes took place since then. We had some international cooperation in the Korean War and Australian help in Vietnam. The Brits have supplied the largest conventional components in Gulf War I and Iraq and Afghanistan. But they are the most like us so that isn't a test of a truly liberal military. Germany, France, etc., have fought small police actions in the former Yugoslavia and provided small contingents in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., but they haven't fought a major war or had to commit major resources since they started becoming more liberal. So even for Europe, the more highly integrated military has never been tested.

Which brings me to my conclusion. The military is at it's best when it doesn't compromise it's team oriented needs in favor of the individual goals, i.e. women, gays, babies, long hair, dope smoking, etc. In so far as we have compromised to date, the military is no longer "best", but it is certainly better than "good enough". The integration of women in the military has created some problems and in some cases, a degradation in the ability to perform the mission, but we are still better than "good enough". We still win. If the goals of the individual ever become paramount to the degree that we are just "good enough", then we are at risk. Because it is a short step from "good enough" to "not good enough". And all it takes is one more step down the scale by us, or confrontation by a military that decided being best was better than being politically correct.
 

D_Eddie Withagun

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Posts
301
Media
0
Likes
19
Points
53
"I don't really care what people who have never served in the military think about how the military should be run."

Yes, because LPSG was funded by the military.. you know.

Your entire argument is based around the notion that DADT is a 10th Commandment from God and that us mere civilians don't have a clue.

I have no interest in what smell an old fart makes..
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
"I don't really care what people who have never served in the military think about how the military should be run."

Yes, because LPSG was funded by the military.. you know.

Your entire argument is based around the notion that DADT is a 10th Commandment from God and that us mere civilians don't have a clue.

I have no interest in what smell an old fart makes..

Yes, you don't have a clue because the civilian world is infinitely different than the military world. As it should be.
 

B_Jingoist

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
354
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Do you know how many guys fuck their girlfriends/wives up the ass?

Good for them, but when it comes to ancient Greek/Roman/Any culture which is praised for their homosexual tendencies, receiving anal sex was viewed as being subservient or a bad thing.

That is history. I don't care what people do now.