Gays in the Military

[B_RedDude]

So then you're in favor of allowing gay people to serve openly.

Sexuality shouldn't be highlighted at all. Either str8 or gay it means nothing and should not mean anything. It should be a non factor.

 

[B_RedDude]

Irrelevant to the discussion. You compared the qualities of the militaries before and after gay men had been allowed to serve openly, saying those that permitted it had become "shells" of their former selves. No need to bring the U.S. into the discussion because we have not yet permitted it.

Documentation? Name one military that has a force projection even close to that of the US.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Irrelevant to the discussion. You compared the qualities of the militaries before and after gay men had been allowed to serve openly, saying those that permitted it had become "shells" of their former selves. No need to bring the U.S. into the discussion because we have not yet permitted it.

They have become shells of their formers selves. Mainly due to their countries cutting funds, changing rules, and generally disregarding the point of a military.

While not directly attributed to the allowance of openly gay troops, its the same mentality.

 

[B_OtterJoq]

Blacks are different than gays. Strawman.

Wow what? Did you even bother to read that?

Yeah; I read it. And again...wow.

Perhaps with life experience, you'll understand. 22 is pretty young, you know.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Yeah; I read it. And again...wow.

Perhaps with life experience, you'll understand. 22 is pretty young, you know.

What part is wow?

 

[B_RedDude]

They have become shells of their formers selves. Mainly due to their countries cutting funds, changing rules, and generally disregarding the point of a military.

I thought all of these other militaries were trying to imitate the U.S. in quality and strength, so why would they take all of these measures that you say have weakened them? You can't have it both ways.

While not directly attributed to the allowance of openly gay troops, its the same mentality.

So you cannot positively document that allowing gay men to serve openly in the military was a factor in these militaries becoming "shells of their former selves."

 

[mariamluvsEMbig]

Why is it such a big deal to openly have Gays in the Military?

As a former recruiter, we recruit a direct representation of the country as a whole (or try) by recruiting the same % of whites, blacks, other, etc. So why not recruit Gays as part of that.

I have heard people claiming that showering, sharing quarters etc as a complaint.

Anyone ever changed in a gym, or showered. There's a pretty good chance that there has been a Gay person there at one time or another. Use a public restroom? You get the point.

Also, sexual harassment laws work both ways. So why is everyone freaking out.

Last year when I was in survival school, I had a Gay room mate the week prior to going out in the field. He never tried anything, never made me uncomfortable, and we actually have remained friends. I felt he was Gay then, and after becoming friends he told me about his boyfriend, lifestyle, etc.

I just think its sad. I still continue to serve and I am proud of my service, but things need to change. I have had Gay friends over the years that I have served with. It's very difficult on them living in secrecy and having to constantly worry about every aspect of what they say and do. One friend of mine, she had a bad drinking problem and would often show up annebriated. We always covered for her. She confided in me about how much it bothered her to not be able to be who she really was at all times.

Oh well, just curious how others feel.

I don't have a problem with it...but then again i'm not the one serving either...i think a lot of it has to do with some people being a little bit uneducated about it. It's not like they're trying to get with you so what's the problem? Everyone has the legal right in this country to represent it by joining one of the armed services...

 

[B_Jingoist]

I thought all of these other militaries were trying to imitate the U.S. in quality and strength, so why would they take all of these measures that you say have weakened them? You can't have it both ways.




So you cannot positively document that allowing gay men to serve openly in the military was a factor in these militaries becoming "shells of their former selves."

They do try to imitate us, as best as their countries allow them to. However, they have been used as social experiments and have degraded them to the point where they are no longer capable of performing in the manner they used to be able to, all because of 'progressive' attitudes.

 

[B_Jingoist]

I don't have a problem with it...but then again i'm not the one serving either...i think a lot of it has to do with some people being a little bit uneducated about it. It's not like they're trying to get with you so what's the problem? Everyone has the legal right in this country to represent it by joining one of the armed services...

Actually its a privilege. The Supreme Court has decided in several instances that the military has a special mission and therefor can choose its entrance requirements and is allowed to discriminate. Example, you can't have asthma, be color blind, handicapped, mentally challenged, or a host of other things.

But it doesn't really matter if they are 'trying to get with you' or not. I wouldn't get away with walking into into the female locker by stating I'm not going to hit on anyone.

 

[B_OtterJoq]

Actually its a privilege. The Supreme Court has decided in several instances that the military has a special mission and therefor can choose its entrance requirements and is allowed to discriminate. Example, you can't have asthma, be color blind, handicapped, mentally challenged, or a host of other things.

So...In your world, homosexuality=handicap.

And you didn't understand my "Wow" comment from earlier?

That, in and of itself, deserves its own "Wow."

Ergo...Wow. Just wow.

 

[B_RedDude]

Thanks. I think I understand better now your viewpoint in comparing the U.S. to other militaries. Not that I agree with you on allowing gay men to serve openly though.

They do try to imitate us, as best as their countries allow them to. However, they have been used as social experiments and have degraded them to the point where they are no longer capable of performing in the manner they used to be able to, all because of 'progressive' attitudes.

 

[B_OtterJoq]

i think a lot of it has to do with some people being a little bit uneducated about it...

Exactly. So...do we stoop to the level of the bigots and idiots, or do we assume that we truly ARE recruiting "the best and the brightest" to defend our country? I, for one, give our troops more credit than others here seem to want to give them.

 

[punk09]

His name was Alan Turing, and he practically invented the discipline of contemporary computer science while cracking the German Enigma automatic coding machine.

Here he is, along with his penis:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4495901942_718deb9125.jpg

Wiki:


Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952—homosexual acts were illegal in the United Kingdom at that time—and he accepted treatment with female hormones, chemical castration, as an alternative to prison. He died in 1954, several weeks before his 42nd birthday, from an apparently self-administered cyanide poisoning, although his mother (and some others) considered his death to be accidental. On 10 September 2009, following an Internet campaign, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government for the way in which Turing was treated after the war.[3]

There was an Englishman in WWII that was gay but he played a big part behind the scenes that helped win that war. He was a patriot to his country

After the war they found he was gay and it wrecked his life.

Wrong. Very wrong.

You can be gay and be a great, loyal and trustworthy American.

 

[B_Jingoist]

So...In your world, homosexuality=handicap.

And you didn't understand my "Wow" comment from earlier?

That, in and of itself, deserves its own "Wow."

Ergo...Wow. Just wow.

Once again, that is the a strawman argument.

You are coming at me like I have something against gay people. If I did, would I be a member of a forum comprised of a lot of gay men talking about their penises? I really don't think so.


I do however have a problem when it comes to people who have no clue what they are talking about trying to change the military. Civilian world go ahead, do whatever you want, be as gay as you want to be. In the military? No, if someone truly wants to serve their nation hiding their sexuality will be the least of their sacrifices.

 

[montanaguy]

I don't know about others here, but the following is my opinion. It may be hypothetical, however if I was serving in the military, I would rather have an experienced combat veteran, who happens to be gay, at my back, than to have a totally new greenhorn straight recruit at my back.

 

[B_RedDude]

Jingoist, you just seem to have a very military elitist outlook.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Jingoist, you just seem to have a very military elitist outlook.

Of course I do. It is my chosen profession. Unlike other professions, people aren't expected to kill other people, nor do most go to work everyday knowing people will be shooting at them. Which is why I am against everything and anything which can degrade our combat effectiveness.

 

[B_Jingoist]

I don't know about others here, but the following is my opinion. It may be hypothetical, however if I was serving in the military, I would rather have an experienced combat veteran, who happens to be gay, at my back, than to have a totally new greenhorn straight recruit at my back.

Of course, but why does it matter if you knew they were gay or not?

 

[punk09]

The military is a government agency and it needs to start behaving like one. Once upon a time, military people had one response and one response only to civilian authority: yes sir.

My first job was working for a guy who served in the Army Air Corps over Italy. Whenever I tried to evade responsibility with him, he said that the only acceptable response was "no excuse sir."

 

[B_Jingoist]

The military is a government agency and it needs to start behaving like one. Once upon a time, military people had one response and one response only to civilian authority: yes sir.

My first job was working for a guy who served in the Army Air Corps over Italy. Whenever I tried to evade responsibility with him, he said that the only acceptable response was "no excuse sir."

There is only one civilian in my chain if command, and that is the Commander in Chief. Other than that my oath states I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, it says nothing about being a public service.