The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Time for gays in the military?

24567

Posts

  • supabeastsupabeast Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Aurin wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    halkun wrote: »
    Having been in the Navy from 1992-1996, I can say that there are already gays in the military and the question is moot.

    It isn't moot because they are not allowed to serve openly?

    What I wonder is what difference the sexual preference makes? Most people don't care how you have sex with your wife/husband at home, (even though certain positions and acts are outlined as wrong in the UCMJ) so why should anyone care if you're gay?

    Do people just want to be able to be in the military and yell "I'm gay?"

    Sexual preference makes no difference. The upper ranks of the American military, like many other parts of our society, have long been full of bigots who can only feel good about themselves by putting someone else down. Now that the military is unable to discriminate based on race, and barely able to discriminate against women, those men are desperate to hold on to their last little bit of bigotry and pretend that they're better than gays.

    As for what gay soldiers want, they just want the same treatment any other professional in the military gets. Don't ask Don't Tell has always been a joke at best; the military still harasses people suspected of being gay, still runs secret investigations into their sex lives, and still destroys their careers, with no censure from Congress or the President. The only way to end this is to force the bigoted military leadership to stop acting on their stupidity and treat all soldiers equally.

    supabeast on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.

    The military is losing numbers fast enough thanks to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why lose even more who are willing and capable soldiers just because there are some bigots who will be forced to reflect upon their irrational hatred in order to work together. I don't see how enforcing this during peacetime would actually be better than doing it during wartime. During peace you have every reason to expect there to be beatings and such when the lights go out since there is nothing to fear. In the middle of a combat zone I'd doubt that it will occur as often. Besides, Jeeps is dealing with enough bullshit as it is. Why make it last even longer.

    moniker on
  • MetatradMetatrad Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    If someone is willing to lay down their life for their country, a huge sacrifice, why should their sexuality ever be a factor at any time?

    Women are in the military. Why should this be any different? There are going to be a few sexual misconduct issues either way, that's human nature.

    Metatrad on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    The number of people I know that are gay seems to go up regularly, but no including jeepguy, I personally know at least five gay people in the military. One of them is so fucking obvious it may as well be an open secret in our battalion. Two of them are my room mates in our eight man pod and so far sexual escapades remain the same for them as just about everyone else: Nil.

    The idea that they should sleep in seperate barracks or shower seperately is ridiculous. They're already sleeping in the same barracks and using the same showers and there isn't a giant mass of gay rapes in the military.

    Edit: Then there's the fact that now that civil unions are being allowed in certain states, gays are being ripped off of thousands of dollars of benefits every month.

    Quid on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    The idea that they should sleep in seperate barracks or shower seperately is ridiculous. They're already sleeping in the same barracks and using the same showers and there isn't a giant mass of gay rapes in the military.

    That get reported...

    moniker on
  • Zephyr_FateZephyr_Fate Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    The idea that they should sleep in seperate barracks or shower seperately is ridiculous. They're already sleeping in the same barracks and using the same showers and there isn't a giant mass of gay rapes in the military.

    That get reported...

    Which is still probably very low.

    Imagine the amount of sexual harassment women get that goes unreported.

    Zephyr_Fate on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I'm never sure what the big deal is. The military in the UK formally declared that sexuality was irrelevant to military service in 2000. They removed the regulations that said a soldier could be discharged on the grounds of sexuality, and (more recently) reworded the regulations about housing and benefits so they applied to registered civil partnerships as well as marriages.

    The rules for sexual misconduct remained the same, because they apply regardless of gender and were originally written in a fairly gender-neutral form anyway, since sexual misconduct can go both ways.

    All this happened with no outcry, public or otherwise, and no disruption to the military itself (who were engaged in Afghanistan, I think).

    I'm betting it'll happen eventually in the US, and those who are opposing it will be surprised by the anticlimax.

    japan on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    japan wrote: »
    I'm betting it'll happen eventually in the US, and those who are opposing it will be surprised by the anticlimax.

    I don't think that the ones who really oppose it will be surprised by the anticlimax.

    Aroused Bull on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    I don't think that the ones who really oppose it will be surprised by the anticlimax.
    Well that's because they won't be around, what with the rapture and all...

    Seriously you have a point, the intolerant "community" is more of a echo chamber than the internet.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • LibrarianLibrarian The face of liberal fascism Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Whenever that topic comes up it's time to quote Mister Bill Hicks:

    Here's how I feel about gays in the military: Anyone … dumb enough … to want to be in the military … should be allowed in. End of fucking story. That should be the only requirement. I don't care how many push-ups you can do – put on a helmet, go wait in that fox hole. We'll tell you when we need you to kill somebody. I've been watching all these Congressional hearings and all these military guys and all the pundits going, "The esprit de corps will be affected, and we are such a moral …" Excuse me, but aren't you all a bunch of fucking hired killers? Shut up! You are thugs, and when we need you to go blow the fuck out of a nation of little brown people, we'll let you know. Until then …

    Librarian on
    Brad R. Torgersen says:

    Librarian,

    Go read what I said about not arguing with third graders.
  • Wedge BiggsWedge Biggs Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Yeah, I gotta agree that this is a moot point. The number of low echelon commanders that would actually prosecute a soldier under the UCMJ for being gay is extremely low. A commander that would throw away a perfectly good soldier just because he sucks off guys (or licks the girls) is one that would have an extremely low standing with his troops anyways. That's just not an officer you want to be serving under. One of our best mechanics in the sandbox was a pure full-blown bulldyke. Nobody cared a damn bit. She could put lead downrange and turn a wrench. Our flight surgeon, a full-bird colonel, was 100% flaming queen. He put stitches and plasma into us and kept our wounded alive. That was good enough for us. The only times I've ever seen anyone discharged for "teh gay" was when the outed soldier was looking for a way back to The World and out of his contract.

    "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has been out of date in the Army for years now, tho. Currently it is the S.A.M. method of deciphering one's sexuality. If someone says that they are gay (Statement), they perform a gay act like blowing someone (Act), or they enter into a homosexual partnership (Marriage), then there is grounds to kick them out of the military. Usually if someone's sexual orientation enters into paperwork, it's merely a scapegoat to boot an otherwise broken soldier.

    One of my troops just wrote me from Basic, and she said that her only problem with homosexuality in the Army was that it made headcount during firewatch a little difficult. She's had to tell a few couples to stop licking each other so her count would come out. The Army doesn't really care, just some of the bigoted higher ranking personnel.

    Wedge Biggs on
    I ain't never crossed a man who didn't deserve it. - Artis Ivey Jr.
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Yeah, I gotta agree that this is a moot point. The number of low echelon commanders that would actually prosecute a soldier under the UCMJ for being gay is extremely low.
    Sadly, not. There are a plenty of cases of prosecution under Don't Tell, you just don't hear about them. I can find some pretty horrific stories, if you want. It will just take a while.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • crash5scrash5s Registered User
    edited February 2007
    When I was in the navy you pretty much knew who was gay and who was not.

    Nobody really cared. As long as you did your job and weren't a screw up you're fine.

    There are some people who do care, most don't.

    crash5s on
  • Wedge BiggsWedge Biggs Registered User
    edited February 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Yeah, I gotta agree that this is a moot point. The number of low echelon commanders that would actually prosecute a soldier under the UCMJ for being gay is extremely low.
    Sadly, not. There are a plenty of cases of prosecution under Don't Tell, you just don't hear about them. I can find some pretty horrific stories, if you want. It will just take a while.

    Please do. And Don't Tell is out of date.

    Wedge Biggs on
    I ain't never crossed a man who didn't deserve it. - Artis Ivey Jr.
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    An AF lady at these threads said that while the Marines and Army are desperately trying to suck peoples in, the Air Force and Navy are cutting people. (All the weapons in the world aren't doing the fighting anymore these days.)

    That may be a reason this is going on, or that they think they can get away with it.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I gotta wonder though. These bigoted commanders that everyone keeps referring to. they have to know that there are a lot of gays under their command and that odds are, they've worked with a gay person and never had a problem. So it makes me wonder if they're not afraid of homosexuality per se, just the flamboyant, effeminate behavior that we're all familiar with and that they're worried that somehow that behavior will become the norm and that the military will suddenly be more concerned about how smart their uniform looks than being an effective fighting force. It seems to me that even a straight effeminate person might not be wanted in the military. So it just makes me wonder if its not the orientation..its the outward behavior that freaks these bigoted people out.

    admittedly I have no experience in this area....just thinking about what the source of the bigotry really is

    VoodooV on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Please do. And Don't Tell is out of date.
    Riiiight...

    With a little Google, you could find out that over 9,000 people have been discharged under the policy. HRC


    There's fun little bits like
    Washington, D.C., January 22, 1999 - The Pentagon released late
    today its gay discharge figures for Fiscal Year 1998. The figures show that the
    Pentagon marked the fifth anniversary of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't
    Pursue" by firing a record 1145 people for being gay in the past year under the
    current policy. The number of discharges is a 92% increase in gay
    discharges since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" was implemented in 1994. The discharge figures also represent the largest number of gay discharges in more than a decade.... C. Dixon Osburn added, "The Pentagon's spin that gays are
    voluntarily coming out is disingenuous and tells us nothing. The real question is why are people making statements. The Pentagon is not telling you that so-called 'voluntary statements' include statements:


    * made to psychotherapists, as in the case former Marine Corporal
    Kevin Blaesing

    * made in personal diaries, as in the case of former West Point Cadet Nicole Galvan

    * contained in anonymous online profiles, as in the case of Master Chief Petty Officer Timothy McVeigh

    * made after being asked, as in the case of former SS3 Kelli Sprague

    * made in federal court documents as in the case of Able v. USA

    * coerced out of the service member due to fear, intimidation, assaults, death threats, threats of criminal prosecution and hostile command climates, as in the cases of former Air Force Major Bob Kittyle, former Marine Lance
    Corporal Kevin Smith, four sailors aboard the USS Eisenhower and former Seaman Amy Barnes.
    SLDN.

    And if you haven't heard about the Arabic linguists, you've been living under a damn rock.

    Officers are human like anyone else. And some of them that would cheerfully put their soldiers first in every other regard are quite capable of hounding people suspected of homosexuality out of the military.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    VoodooV wrote: »
    ... they're worried that somehow that behavior will become the norm and that the military will suddenly be more concerned about how smart their uniform looks than being an effective fighting force.


    I assure you, this sometimes is already the case. 'Least in the Air Force.

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Um, sorry if I'm being dense, but:
    "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has been out of date in the Army for years now, tho. Currently it is the S.A.M. method of deciphering one's sexuality. If someone says that they are gay (Statement), they perform a gay act like blowing someone (Act), or they enter into a homosexual partnership (Marriage), then there is grounds to kick them out of the military. Usually if someone's sexual orientation enters into paperwork, it's merely a scapegoat to boot an otherwise broken soldier.

    How is this SAM so different from DADT that DADT is now outdated and irrelevant? Doesn't SAM simply expand or clarify the list of ways a person can 'tell'? As far as I can see, the actual policy of DADT is still in place--and it's nice that you've met sweet and tolerant officers who will tolerate homosexuality, but I don't think 'out of date' quite sums up the situation. :(

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    The Master Chief Petty Officer has an unfortunate name.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • Zephyr_FateZephyr_Fate Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    VoodooV wrote: »
    I gotta wonder though. These bigoted commanders that everyone keeps referring to. they have to know that there are a lot of gays under their command and that odds are, they've worked with a gay person and never had a problem. So it makes me wonder if they're not afraid of homosexuality per se, just the flamboyant, effeminate behavior that we're all familiar with and that they're worried that somehow that behavior will become the norm and that the military will suddenly be more concerned about how smart their uniform looks than being an effective fighting force. It seems to me that even a straight effeminate person might not be wanted in the military. So it just makes me wonder if its not the orientation..its the outward behavior that freaks these bigoted people out.

    admittedly I have no experience in this area....just thinking about what the source of the bigotry really is

    Considering flamboyant gay people are a minority rather a majority, and those same people wouldn't even dream of going into the military..flamboyant behavior should *not* be a reason why they keep gays out.

    Along those same lines, we should keep black people out because *some* or maybe even *a little* of them do drugs, screw hoes, and hate the white man.

    Zephyr_Fate on
  • ALockslyALocksly Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Considering flamboyant gay people are a minority rather a majority, and those same people wouldn't even dream of going into the military..flamboyant behavior should *not* be a reason why they keep gays out.

    Along those same lines, we should keep black people out because *some* or maybe even *a little* of them do drugs, screw hoes, and hate the white man.

    Yeah, but they got rhythm and keep the rest of us in step when calling cadence so it evens out.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Considering flamboyant gay people are a minority rather a majority, and those same people wouldn't even dream of going into the military..flamboyant behavior should *not* be a reason why they keep gays out.

    Along those same lines, we should keep black people out because *some* or maybe even *a little* of them do drugs, screw hoes, and hate the white man.

    Yeah, but they got rhythm and keep the rest of us in step when calling cadence so it evens out.

    "Black guys, help the white guys!"
    -Bill Murray (or was it Harold Ramis?), Stripes

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Zephyr_FateZephyr_Fate Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Considering flamboyant gay people are a minority rather a majority, and those same people wouldn't even dream of going into the military..flamboyant behavior should *not* be a reason why they keep gays out.

    Along those same lines, we should keep black people out because *some* or maybe even *a little* of them do drugs, screw hoes, and hate the white man.

    Yeah, but they got rhythm and keep the rest of us in step when calling cadence so it evens out.

    And gay people would make sure you look good in your otherwise drab uniform.

    You can be fabulous!

    [/myoverlyflamboyantqueenside]

    Zephyr_Fate on
  • ALockslyALocksly Registered User
    edited February 2007
    deowolf wrote: »
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Considering flamboyant gay people are a minority rather a majority, and those same people wouldn't even dream of going into the military..flamboyant behavior should *not* be a reason why they keep gays out.

    Along those same lines, we should keep black people out because *some* or maybe even *a little* of them do drugs, screw hoes, and hate the white man.

    Yeah, but they got rhythm and keep the rest of us in step when calling cadence so it evens out.

    "Black guys, help the white guys!"
    -Bill Murray (or was it Harold Ramis?), Stripes

    Murray

    and ironically, we had one black guy in basic who couldn't stay in step to save his life, the black Drill sergeants would poke fun at him all the time for his lack of "the rhythm"

    Of course, we also had a white guy who, I shit you not, carried a rock in his right trouser pocket so he would remember which way to turn when he heard "right face"

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Considering flamboyant gay people are a minority rather a majority, and those same people wouldn't even dream of going into the military..flamboyant behavior should *not* be a reason why they keep gays out.

    Along those same lines, we should keep black people out because *some* or maybe even *a little* of them do drugs, screw hoes, and hate the white man.

    Yeah, but they got rhythm and keep the rest of us in step when calling cadence so it evens out.

    "Black guys, help the white guys!"
    -Bill Murray (or was it Harold Ramis?), Stripes

    Murray

    and ironically, we had one black guy in basic who couldn't stay in step to save his life, the black Drill sergeants would poke fun at him all the time for his lack of "the rhythm"

    Of course, we also had a white guy who, I shit you not, carried a rock in his right trouser pocket so he would remember which way to turn when he heard "right face"

    SHould've done the L backwards L thing with his finger and thumb.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • LadyMLadyM Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    VoodooV wrote: »
    It seems to me that even a straight effeminate person might not be wanted in the military.


    Thank God they don't let women in!

    LadyM on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    I'm not sure if this has been linked yet.

    ege02 on
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    I'm not sure if this has been linked yet.

    It kind of works against the removal of DADT since the sacred band of thebes were totally having the butt secks with each other in the shower. That's what commanders are afraid of happening. Plus it adds some legitimacy to the Yar rape reflex.

    moniker on
  • Zephyr_FateZephyr_Fate Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    You mean, it works "for" the removal of DADT.

    The thing is, the Band of Thebes actually increased in warlike rage when their male lovers were killed. They fought harder.

    Imagine that applied to the soldiers fighting in Iraq and you have a better fighting force overall.

    Zephyr_Fate on
  • WillyGilliganWillyGilligan Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Actually, with the way we wage modern war, rage is the last thing we want soldiers to feel, as I understand it. It might help you shove spears into people harder, but shooting accuracy tends to go down. Also, I think some of the war crimes that have been in the news have been motivated by revenge for casualties in the unit. We demand more professionalism and detachment nowadays.

    Not that I think gays can't fight, but the "protecting your lover" angle doesn't seem to be a good arument in favor. Also, it might be balanced out by petty jealousy and relationship drama within the unit. It already happens with women and men serving together, so it's not a special reason to keep gays out, but it's certainly not something to strive for now.

    WillyGilligan on
  • HydroSqueegeeHydroSqueegee ULTRACAT!!!™®© Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    crash5s wrote: »
    When I was in the navy you pretty much knew who was gay and who was not.

    Nobody really cared. As long as you did your job and weren't a screw up you're fine.

    There are some people who do care, most don't.

    reminds me of my great grandpas comments about the navy when he server durring WW1...

    "I saw guys drop their pants for a quarter!"

    :D

    HydroSqueegee on
    zW0NKxe.png
  • Zephyr_FateZephyr_Fate Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Actually, with the way we wage modern war, rage is the last thing we want soldiers to feel, as I understand it. It might help you shove spears into people harder, but shooting accuracy tends to go down. Also, I think some of the war crimes that have been in the news have been motivated by revenge for casualties in the unit. We demand more professionalism and detachment nowadays.

    Not that I think gays can't fight, but the "protecting your lover" angle doesn't seem to be a good arument in favor. Also, it might be balanced out by petty jealousy and relationship drama within the unit. It already happens with women and men serving together, so it's not a special reason to keep gays out, but it's certainly not something to strive for now.

    There doesn't seem much of a need for professionalism in an already unprofessional war.

    Zephyr_Fate on
  • ZakalweZakalwe Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Not that I think gays can't fight, but the "protecting your lover" angle doesn't seem to be a good arument in favor. Also, it might be balanced out by petty jealousy and relationship drama within the unit. It already happens with women and men serving together, so it's not a special reason to keep gays out, but it's certainly not something to strive for now.

    True, but it does show that being gay doesn't necessarily reduce ones combat effectiveness, even if the whole 'relationship drama' thing involved in the Sacred Band may not make it a perfect example. Instances such as this show that it can't simply be argued that gays will reduce combat effectiveness in such vague and unspecified manner.

    Also, the christian right's pathological objection to/hatred of homosexuals would be somewhat diminished (or at least, look even more retarded, if that is possible) if some of the brave soldiers fighting for them were gay...

    Zakalwe on
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Zakalwe wrote: »

    Also, the christian right's pathological objection to/hatred of homosexuals would be somewhat diminished (or at least, look even more retarded, if that is possible) if some of the brave soldiers fighting for them were gay...

    Considering the high-percentage of members of the military who are also members of the Christian right, I'd doubt it.

    As bad as it sounds, I think the only way to get gays openly into the military is to cram it down their throats.

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Is the 'gays in the military' argument even still an argument?

    It needs to be done.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    accept your death, and become dangerous
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Is the 'gays in the military' argument even still an argument?

    It needs to be done.

    It's still an argument. Of course, seems the argument among reasonable people is pretty much just whether or not doing it today is a good idea, considering a current conflict is already putting a large strain on the military. This is, of course, much different than the "old" argument over whether or not it was a good idea in general. Which it pretty obviously is.

    Based on what siliconenhanced said, it seems like the answer is "shouldn't be a huge problem." I'm the cautious type, so I figure allowing it in non-combat units for now might be a good start. Either way, it seems that something needs to be done and I'm not fond of the idea of waiting until some hazy end date of our current conflicts to get at it.

    mcdermott on
  • crash5scrash5s Registered User
    edited February 2007
    deowolf wrote: »
    Zakalwe wrote: »

    Also, the christian right's pathological objection to/hatred of homosexuals would be somewhat diminished (or at least, look even more retarded, if that is possible) if some of the brave soldiers fighting for them were gay...

    Considering the high-percentage of members of the military who are also members of the Christian right, I'd doubt it.

    As bad as it sounds, I think the only way to get gays openly into the military is to cram it down their throats.

    This is a misconception, it's not nearly as bible thumping as people think.

    Again I can only speak for what I saw first hand, but the vast majority of people around me weren't religious at all. They came from all walks of life.

    We had one bible thumper, and he got shit constantly for it.

    crash5s on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited February 2007
    crash5s wrote: »
    This is a misconception, it's not nearly as bible thumping as people think.

    Again I can only speak for what I saw first hand, but the vast majority of people around me weren't religious at all. They came from all walks of life.

    We had one bible thumper, and he got shit constantly for it.

    That's been my experience interacting with the military as well. On the whole, they're fairly irreverent. The anti-gay thing is probably, on the whole, a by-product of the military holding up homos as a bogeyman and slur during basic training.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • CarnivoreCarnivore Registered User
    edited February 2007
    So this 'no gays in the military' is a pretty commonly known rule right?

    So if a gay man wanted to join the military, knowing full well they dont allow gays, couldnt he, just you know, lie.

    Its not like there's a test for homosexuality. I just dont understand how this rule is enforced at all in any way, shape or form.

    cue family guy 'you've got a gay' clip.

    Carnivore on
    hihi.jpg
This discussion has been closed.