Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
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?

13567

Posts

  • GigatonGigaton Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Carnivore wrote: »
    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.

    That's not the point. The point is that he shouldn't have to lie.

    Gigaton on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Carnivore wrote: »
    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.

    The military does allow gays, that's the point. They are technically allowed to serve. They simply can't share their orientation, and are required to remain abstinent during their term of service (homosexual acts still being disallowed). They never even have to lie...the question is simply never asked.

    This probably wouldn't matter so much to some kid who wants to knock out two years in the Army to pay for college. He could either just remain abstinent, or keep his personal life on the down low for that length of time. However, it does largely preclude anybody who is homosexual from making a career of it...over the course of 20 years, somebody is probably going to find out you are gay, provided you don't remain abstinent for 20 years (which is both unreasonable and unlikely).

    I'm not particularly okay with keeping otherwise fit and motivated folks from making a career of the military simply because they happen to be gay. Nor do I even think it's reasonable to expect somebody who's gay to either abstain from an intimate relationship or lie about it for even a few years...straight soldiers certainly don't have to.

    Or did you simply not realize that there is a test for homosexuality; it's called "getting caught kissing and or having sexual relations with other guys (or girls)."

    mcdermott on
  • CarnivoreCarnivore Registered User
    edited February 2007
    Gigaton wrote: »
    Carnivore wrote: »
    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.

    That's not the point. The point is that he shouldn't have to lie.

    That is true. I completely agree.

    But from the Army point of view, why even have the rule in the first place if it is entirely unenforcable, not to mention ethically questionable in the first place.

    Or is that just their 'thang?

    Carnivore on
    hihi.jpg
  • CarnivoreCarnivore Registered User
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Or did you simply not realize that there is a test for homosexuality; it's called "getting caught kissing and or having sexual relations with other guys (or girls)."

    I mean when you enrole.

    Unless you turn up with your partner and shag right there on the desk.

    In which case you probably shouldnt join the army anyways. ;-)

    Carnivore on
    hihi.jpg
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    crash5s wrote: »
    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.


    I dunno, my experiences so far are quite the opposite - the parts of the Air Force I've seen have been almost disturbingly C/R. And people I've conversed with on the issue always jumped to biblical explanation agaisnt homosexuality (it's against God), rather than the personal (ewww, boys kissing).

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Carnivore wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Or did you simply not realize that there is a test for homosexuality; it's called "getting caught kissing and or having sexual relations with other guys (or girls)."

    I mean when you enrole.

    Unless you turn up with your partner and shag right there on the desk.

    In which case you probably shouldnt join the army anyways. ;-)

    Gotcha. Then as I said, no need to lie...the question is never asked, and gays are allowed to serve. The problem is that you need to complete your term of service, not simply enlist, in order to receive some benefits.

    And that the longer somebody serves the more likely they are to be caught if they decide to have a sex life. And asking abstinence of one group of soldiers while allowing another to run wild and free is beyond unfair.

    It's not that being gay precludes service, it's just that it places an undue burden on the gay servicemember.

    Oh, and somebody mentioned that now that gay marriages (and civil unions) are allowed in many states, it fucks gay soldiers who might otherwise qualify out of gobs of money...things like BAH, separation pay, etc.

    mcdermott on
  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2007
    I was in the Army from 94-99 and some of my best friends were gay, they were also excellent soldiers too. Though most we're low ranking just like myself at the time and I don't think they should should serve openly mainly because of the commanders. The military is not ready for high ranking men in uniform to dance or hold hands with other men in uniform.

    I'm open to gays to serve openly once world peace has been achieved.

    LondonBridge on
  • crash5scrash5s Registered User
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Carnivore wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Or did you simply not realize that there is a test for homosexuality; it's called "getting caught kissing and or having sexual relations with other guys (or girls)."

    I mean when you enrole.

    Unless you turn up with your partner and shag right there on the desk.

    In which case you probably shouldnt join the army anyways. ;-)

    Gotcha. Then as I said, no need to lie...the question is never asked, and gays are allowed to serve. The problem is that you need to complete your term of service, not simply enlist, in order to receive some benefits.

    And that the longer somebody serves the more likely they are to be caught if they decide to have a sex life. And asking abstinence of one group of soldiers while allowing another to run wild and free is beyond unfair.

    It's not that being gay precludes service, it's just that it places an undue burden on the gay servicemember.

    Oh, and somebody mentioned that now that gay marriages (and civil unions) are allowed in many states, it fucks gay soldiers who might otherwise qualify out of gobs of money...things like BAH, separation pay, etc.

    You should be aware you can get kicked out from the military for having straight sex as well?

    You aren't allowed to fuck other service members while deployed gay or straight. It's bad for unit cohesion and other such nonsense. When I was in the Navy I saw more peopled kicked out for having straight sex on the ship then I did for being gay.

    Though of course people were having sex both gay and straight.

    crash5s on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    What is unique to the US military that makes it "not ready" for gays to serve openly? Most of NATO managed it without any problems.

    japan on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    japan wrote: »
    What is unique to the US military that makes it "not ready" for gays to serve openly? Most of NATO managed it without any problems.
    More bigots.

    Thanatos on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    I was in the Army from 94-99 and some of my best friends were gay, they were also excellent soldiers too. Though most we're low ranking just like myself at the time and I don't think they should should serve openly mainly because of the commanders. The military is not ready for high ranking men in uniform to dance or hold hands with other men in uniform.

    I'm open to gays to serve openly once world peace has been achieved.

    You're being facetious, yes?

    Aroused Bull on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    crash5s wrote: »
    You should be aware you can get kicked out from the military for having straight sex as well?

    You aren't allowed to fuck other service members while deployed gay or straight. It's bad for unit cohesion and other such nonsense. When I was in the Navy I saw more peopled kicked out for having straight sex on the ship then I did for being gay.

    When I was on active duty in the Army the rules on fraternization were pretty liberal...as long as they were at the same "level" as you (lower enlisted, NCO, commissioned) and weren't in your chain of command (or in your same unit...I think company level) you were fine.

    Even relationships between lower enlisted and NCO's were often tolerated, as long as the NCO was nowhere near the lower-ranking soldier's chain of command. Like, whole different battalion at least.

    Which is beside the point, because under the current system gay soldiers can't even have relationships openly with non-servicemembers. They can't have an intimate relationship with anybody of the same gender, no matter what...even a spouse, in states that would allow it. Of course, they wouldn't be allowed to have said spouse either.
    More bigots.

    Is this just thet US military? I'm thinking we have more bigots in the general population, too. Though of course many of them tend to gravitate to the military where they can be shielded from having to watch coworkers of the same sex hold hands.

    mcdermott on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Which is beside the point, because under the current system gay soldiers can't even have relationships openly with non-servicemembers. They can't have an intimate relationship with anybody of the same gender, no matter what...even a spouse, in states that would allow it. Of course, they wouldn't be allowed to have said spouse either.

    I do remember that last time we had this conversation, we determined that "Don't ask, Don't tell," would only be fair if nobody was allowed to have relationships or talk about sex at all. I think it would be quite funny to see them try and make that one stick.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    More bigots.

    Is this just thet US military? I'm thinking we have more bigots in the general population, too. Though of course many of them tend to gravitate to the military where they can be shielded from having to watch coworkers of the same sex hold hands.

    Now that I think about it, the US (as a whole) is famously puritanical about sex. That might have something to do with it. I'm also wondering if the military recruits much more heavily from red States where homo-bashing is the norm.

    japan on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    More bigots.
    Is this just thet US military? I'm thinking we have more bigots in the general population, too. Though of course many of them tend to gravitate to the military where they can be shielded from having to watch coworkers of the same sex hold hands.
    Oh, good god no, it's not limited to just the military.

    We're the nation with a lot more xenophobes, bigots, and religious extremists than pretty much any other nation in NATO. I think this phenomenon is exaggerated a bit in the military because of the "no gay" policy, and the tendency for the Toby-Keith-style faux patriots to want to enlist.

    By no means, though, do I think it applies to everyone in the military. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what percentage it might apply to.

    Thanatos on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited February 2007
    Carnivore wrote: »
    But from the Army point of view, why even have the rule in the first place if it is entirely unenforcable, not to mention ethically questionable in the first place.
    Because it philosophically allows them to continue to openly gay-bash.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    and the tendency for the Toby-Keith-style faux patriots to want to enlist.

    I hate those fuckers.
    japan wrote: »
    I'm also wondering if the military recruits much more heavily from red States where homo-bashing is the norm.

    I'm pretty sure they do. I seem to remember reading a couple places that rural areas (both from "red states" as well as the more rural areas of "blue states"...which are little different) are overrepresented in the military.

    mcdermott on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    More bigots.
    Is this just thet US military? I'm thinking we have more bigots in the general population, too. Though of course many of them tend to gravitate to the military where they can be shielded from having to watch coworkers of the same sex hold hands.
    Oh, good god no, it's not limited to just the military.

    We're the nation with a lot more xenophobes, bigots, and religious extremists than pretty much any other nation in NATO. I think this phenomenon is exaggerated a bit in the military because of the "no gay" policy, and the tendency for the Toby-Keith-style faux patriots to want to enlist.

    By no means, though, do I think it applies to everyone in the military. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what percentage it might apply to.

    The English colonies were founded by the "witch burning" kinda Christian.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Cantido wrote: »
    The English colonies were founded by the "witch burning" kinda Christian.
    Yeah, whereas American history is fond of saying that the Puritans left England in order to get religious freedom, it's more analagous to, say, the Jehovah's Witnesses wanting to leave America, and taking up a collection.

    I know I'd be happy to donate.

    Thanatos on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I dunno, my experiences so far are quite the opposite - the parts of the Air Force I've seen have been almost disturbingly C/R.
    Everything I've heard suggests that the AF is indeed disturbingly evangelical, to the point where it's practically institutionalized in the academy. My experiences with the Army haven't demosntrated any particular emphasis on the Christian Right, and no one has couched opposition to homosexuality in religious terms.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Well, I'm going to go ahead and say it shouldn't be an issue, simply because no one other than yourself should know your sexual orientation; it's not the governments business, it's not your families business, it's not your fellow soldiers business, it's not anyones but your own. I say again, what you like to do with whomever you like to do it with is no ones business but your own, and if you choose to bring that into public light, no one is responsible for the consequences but you.

    It's that simple.

    I have no doubt there are gays in the military; they all probably do a fine job at whatever they are assigned, and I have no doubt the military would be less of what it is without them, this is however only because they choose to keep quiet about what they do outside of their job. They don't create undue stress on themselves or on others by pressing the fact that they choose a different lifestyle on others. Don't shit where you eat, as it were.

    In that same respect is it right that another straight soldier should be able to socialize with other soldiers about how he banged some chick the other night? No it's not, but they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You shouldn't talk about such topics while on the job, and in the military that's 24/7.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    In that same respect is it right that another straight soldier should be able to socialize with other soldiers about how he banged some chick the other night? No it's not, but they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You shouldn't talk about such topics while on the job, and in the military that's 24/7.

    Except they do do it, and without fear of reprisal. As soon as we change the rules such that straight soldiers are not allowed to talk about their relationships, and in fact must hide those relationships so that others don't accidentally find out, then we can talk.

    But, of course, that still wouldn't address the BAH/seperation pay issues in states where marriage/civil unions are allowed for homosexuals.

    What's your plan to solve that one?
    They don't create undue stress on themselves or on others by pressing the fact that they choose a different lifestyle on others.

    If their lifestyle creates undue stress for you, that's your problem. From their POV, yours is the different lifestyle. Want to talk majority/minority, we can talk about integrating blacks.

    mcdermott on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I have no doubt there are gays in the military; they all probably do a fine job at whatever they are assigned, and I have no doubt the military would be less of what it is without them, this is however only because they choose to keep quiet about what they do outside of their job. They don't create undue stress on themselves or on others by pressing the fact that they choose a different lifestyle on others.

    Having to hide an aspect of yourself, having to second and third guess everything you do because "oh shits, is someone gonna think I'm gay if I say/do this?" is creating undue stress on yourself, dude.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    In that same respect is it right that another straight soldier should be able to socialize with other soldiers about how he banged some chick the other night? No it's not, but they shouldn't be doing it in the first place. You shouldn't talk about such topics while on the job, and in the military that's 24/7.

    Except they do do it, and without fear of reprisal. As soon as we change the rules such that straight soldiers are not allowed to talk about their relationships, and in fact must hide those relationships so that others don't accidentally find out, then we can talk.

    But, of course, that still wouldn't address the BAH/seperation pay issues in states where marriage/civil unions are allowed for homosexuals.

    What's your plan to solve that one?

    Soldiers aren't allowed to talk about their relationships - at least not in the way I'm thinking of, but you are correct they do anyway and yes without fear of reprisal. And why do they do this? Because they are confident in the soldiers interests around them. If G.I. Joe knew G.I. Jim was bangin' some dude there goes unit cohesion. When G.I. Jim keeps his personal interests to himself then G.I. Joe doesn't have a worry. It's wrong, but that's how it is.

    I have no plan for BAH/seperation pay issues.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    If G.I. Joe knew G.I. Jim was bangin' some dude there goes unit cohesion.
    Sounds to me like G.I. Joe is an asshole and shouldn't be the model to which we hold our military standards.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Blackjack wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    If G.I. Joe knew G.I. Jim was bangin' some dude there goes unit cohesion.
    Sounds to me like G.I. Joe is an asshole and shouldn't be the model to which we hold our military standards.
    DING!

    And this is the attitude I was talking about being common in combat arms line units.

    mcdermott on
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Blackjack wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    If G.I. Joe knew G.I. Jim was bangin' some dude there goes unit cohesion.
    Sounds to me like G.I. Joe is an asshole and shouldn't be the model to which we hold our military standards.
    Well damn, next time I talk with my CO I'll let him know to send up the ranks that "Open mindedness" is the new goal of the military.

    Seriously; I can guarantee 90 percent of the male portion of the army would not want to work effectively with gays. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Well damn, next time I talk with my CO I'll let him know to send up the ranks that "Open mindedness" is the new goal of the military.

    Seriously; I can guarantee 90 percent of the male portion of the army would not want to work effectively with gays. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is.

    Same argument used for the negroes. Wasn't right (or valid) then, either. Racism wasn't a valid excuse, and neither is homophobia.

    mcdermott on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Blackjack wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    If G.I. Joe knew G.I. Jim was bangin' some dude there goes unit cohesion.
    Sounds to me like G.I. Joe is an asshole and shouldn't be the model to which we hold our military standards.
    Well damn, next time I talk with my CO I'll let him know to send up the ranks that "Open mindedness" is the new goal of the military.

    Seriously; I can guarantee 90 percent of the male portion of the army would not want to work effectively with gays. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is.

    They didn't want to work with blacks, either.

    Dammit, mcdermott, stop posting the same thing as me right before I post it!

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Also, if somebody above your CO decides gays get to openly serve, then it becomes his job to make sure you and your buddies deal with it. Whether you like it or not.

    mcdermott on
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Blackjack wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Blackjack wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    If G.I. Joe knew G.I. Jim was bangin' some dude there goes unit cohesion.
    Sounds to me like G.I. Joe is an asshole and shouldn't be the model to which we hold our military standards.
    Well damn, next time I talk with my CO I'll let him know to send up the ranks that "Open mindedness" is the new goal of the military.

    Seriously; I can guarantee 90 percent of the male portion of the army would not want to work effectively with gays. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is.

    They didn't want to work with blacks, either.

    I'm going to say that was a different situation, you're going to contest.

    Maybe things will change with time. I don't know.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Blackjack wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Blackjack wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    If G.I. Joe knew G.I. Jim was bangin' some dude there goes unit cohesion.
    Sounds to me like G.I. Joe is an asshole and shouldn't be the model to which we hold our military standards.
    Well damn, next time I talk with my CO I'll let him know to send up the ranks that "Open mindedness" is the new goal of the military.

    Seriously; I can guarantee 90 percent of the male portion of the army would not want to work effectively with gays. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is.

    They didn't want to work with blacks, either.

    I'm going to say that was a different situation, you're going to contest.

    Maybe things will change with time. I don't know.

    Actually, I was going to ask "how."

    My prediction is you're going to counter with "unnatural" and "choice."

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I'm going to say that was a different situation, you're going to contest.

    Maybe things will change with time. I don't know.

    No, things will change with change. Make the change, and people will deal with it...same as with blacks, same as with women. That's the beauty of the military...you have a rigid command structure and a draconian system of punishment, so if anybody has an issue with it you can simply crush their nuts. In the strictly figurative sense, that is.

    mcdermott on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Blackjack wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    Blackjack wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    If G.I. Joe knew G.I. Jim was bangin' some dude there goes unit cohesion.
    Sounds to me like G.I. Joe is an asshole and shouldn't be the model to which we hold our military standards.
    Well damn, next time I talk with my CO I'll let him know to send up the ranks that "Open mindedness" is the new goal of the military.

    Seriously; I can guarantee 90 percent of the male portion of the army would not want to work effectively with gays. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is.

    They didn't want to work with blacks, either.

    I'm going to say that was a different situation, you're going to contest.

    Maybe things will change with time. I don't know.

    How, exactly, was it a different situation?

    Aroused Bull on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I'm going to say that was a different situation, you're going to contest.

    Maybe things will change with time. I don't know.

    No, things will change with change. Make the change, and people will deal with it...same as with blacks, same as with women. That's the beauty of the military...you have a rigid command structure and a draconian system of punishment, so if anybody has an issue with it you can simply crush their nuts. In the strictly figurative sense, that is.

    I dunno, forced castration would solve the sexuality issue.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I'm going to say that was a different situation, you're going to contest.

    Maybe things will change with time. I don't know.

    No, things will change with change. Make the change, and people will deal with it...same as with blacks, same as with women. That's the beauty of the military...you have a rigid command structure and a draconian system of punishment, so if anybody has an issue with it you can simply crush their nuts. In the strictly figurative sense, that is.

    I don't contest this. I have no problem with gays and their involvement in the military. I'm just saying that as of right now, people would not cope with it, and that would mean bad things in war environments.

    I would integrate in a time of relative peace, not when we may be on the brink of war with several different nations and are embedded in another country.

    h3ndu on
    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I don't contest this. I have no problem with gays and their involvement in the military. I'm just saying that as of right now, people would not cope with it, and that would mean bad things in war environments.

    I would integrate in a time of relative peace, not when we may be on the brink of war with several different nations and are embedded in another country.

    See, we've seen two different viewpoints on this though. Siliconenhanced seems to think that even combat units would transition relatively smoothly, and that the homophobes are really just a vocal and half-retarded minority. You seem to think that the infantry would collapse upon itself if gay men (who are already all up in infantry units) could suddenly stop lying about/hiding who they are.

    Me, I could go either way. I see no real reason not to integrate non-combat units right now though...they've already been dealing with females forever, and I feel confident they could handle gays if they had to. Maybe we can let the few neanderthals in the combat arms line units keep their boy's club for a bit longer.

    I still say we just go all out, though, and any soldiers (combat or no) who cause problems get a one-way ticket to scenic Kansas.

    mcdermott on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I would integrate in a time of relative peace, not when we may be on the brink of war with several different nations and are embedded in another country.
    So, shoot for 2030, maybe?

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    To go back to one of your earlier statements, can I ask why would knowing who one of your fellow soldiers sleeps with destroy unit cohesion and morale?

    I mean, I've never been in the military. Maybe there's a good reason. Maybe the entire unit bonds by giving each other heterosexual backrubs. I don't know. It just seems to me like the defense is "Well...gays is yicky, so I don't want 'em."

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Blackjack wrote: »
    To go back to one of your earlier statements, can I ask why would knowing who one of your fellow soldiers sleeps with destroy unit cohesion and morale?

    I mean, I've never been in the military. Maybe there's a good reason. Maybe the entire unit bonds by giving each other heterosexual backrubs. I don't know. It just seems to me like the defense is "Well...gays is yicky, so I don't want 'em."

    No, trust me...there's no good reason. Just a greater-than-average helping of homophobia.

    mcdermott on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    That really shouldn't surprise me, but I can't help but be incredibly saddened by that.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
This discussion has been closed.