Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Forums _ Debate _ Gays in the Military

Posted by: Paladin Feb 13 2010, 12:20 PM

I think legally and publicly accepting gays into our armed forces is a step forward in a modern military. Though I can imagine some of the potential drawbacks, the benefits outweigh them in my mind.

What do you think?

Posted by: serotonin Feb 13 2010, 02:34 PM

absolutely not we don't need f****ts in the armed forces it'll just become a sissy unit and a bunch of gays f*cking shit up

Posted by: itanium Feb 13 2010, 02:37 PM

sure but put them on the front lines. Make sure they die first.

Posted by: Maccabee Feb 13 2010, 02:51 PM

Seriously, if they allowed it, they would just be asking to be mocked.

And besides that, rape might be an issue.

Posted by: brooklyneast05 Feb 13 2010, 03:02 PM

QUOTE(Maccabee @ Feb 13 2010, 01:51 PM) *
Seriously, if they allowed it, they would just be asking to be mocked.

And besides that, rape might be an issue.


how? there are gays in the military right now already. all the sudden they will start raping people when they haven't been doing that thus far?

Posted by: IWontRapeYou Feb 13 2010, 04:05 PM

QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Feb 13 2010, 02:02 PM) *
how? there are gays in the military right now already. all the sudden they will start raping people when they haven't been doing that thus far?


Because gay guys want to f*ck everyone. EVERYONE. It's not their fault. They are natural rape machines. It's why god hates them.

Posted by: itanium Feb 13 2010, 09:34 PM

QUOTE(Maccabee @ Feb 13 2010, 01:51 PM) *
Seriously, if they allowed it, they would just be asking to be mocked.

And besides that, rape might be an issue.

the policy is don't ask don't tell, not zero tolerance.

Posted by: emberfly Feb 14 2010, 04:22 AM

They're already accepted.... I don't understand what you're saying.

Posted by: Maccabee Feb 14 2010, 04:43 AM

Gay people are gay.

Posted by: fameONE Feb 28 2010, 10:23 AM

QUOTE(Paladin @ Feb 13 2010, 12:20 PM) *
I think legally and publicly accepting gays into our armed forces is a step forward in a modern military. Though I can imagine some of the potential drawbacks, the benefits outweigh them in my mind.

What do you think?

Yes, there are gays in the military already. I don't care about what someone's sexual orientation is, but the moment this is an issue that's brought to the forefront, then the mission, whatever it is (combat or peacetime), will not get accomplished. You'll have troops that are paranoid that every gay guy is plotting a violent rape scheme, or, even worse, their brother in arms, might end up being a target.

Posted by: synapse Mar 2 2010, 04:41 AM

I'd be more than willing to serve if homosexual people were openly allowed to serve. Brandon is correct though. Whether in the current law, or the proposed the situation is the same. A lot of soldiers are uncomfortable having homosexual brethren that would come about as strangers. If the proposed new law is allowing gays into the military openly, the first wave will not be easy. I'm sure though, in time it'll be easier for soldiers to adapt.

Posted by: Uso Mar 2 2010, 06:11 PM

I thing they should have the same equality overall but basically like itanium said, if they keep with the "don't ask don't tell" rule, they prolly will be fine

But looking one step back, they still do that sometimes with women in the military too.

correct me if I'm wrong

Posted by: Beenly Mar 2 2010, 06:16 PM

gonna look back at english bill of rights

Posted by: karmakiller Mar 2 2010, 07:55 PM

QUOTE(Uso @ Mar 2 2010, 05:11 PM) *
I thing they should have the same equality overall but basically like itanium said, if they keep with the "don't ask don't tell" rule, they prolly will be fine

But looking one step back, they still do that sometimes with women in the military too.

correct me if I'm wrong

Can you explain what you're talking about here? I wasn't aware that women used to hide their sex, haha.

Posted by: itanium Mar 2 2010, 08:19 PM

QUOTE(karmakiller @ Mar 2 2010, 06:55 PM) *
Can you explain what you're talking about here? I wasn't aware that women used to hide their sex, haha.

It happened all the time. Women would cut their hair and bind their chest, and could often pass as male that way. Of course, as far as I know it never happened in the US military, but other armies with no real rigorous entry programs is where it was common.

Posted by: Beenly Mar 2 2010, 08:41 PM

QUOTE(itanium @ Mar 2 2010, 05:19 PM) *
It happened all the time. Women would cut their hair and bind their chest, and could often pass as male that way. Of course, as far as I know it never happened in the US military, but other armies with no real rigorous entry programs is where it was common.

have you been watching too many mulan

Posted by: Uso Mar 2 2010, 08:59 PM

QUOTE(karmakiller @ Mar 2 2010, 07:55 PM) *
Can you explain what you're talking about here? I wasn't aware that women used to hide their sex, haha.


There are limits to what women can do in the military, like they cant do some weaponry stuff. Like I dont think they let them be in the middle of a battle or hold heavy artilery. I wish i still had the paper cause I had to write an ACT essay about it

But this could be different from the whole gay people thing

Posted by: karmakiller Mar 2 2010, 09:05 PM

QUOTE(itanium @ Mar 2 2010, 07:19 PM) *
It happened all the time. Women would cut their hair and bind their chest, and could often pass as male that way. Of course, as far as I know it never happened in the US military, but other armies with no real rigorous entry programs is where it was common.

Highly, highly unlikely that a woman disguised as a man would pass a physical and not be caught, whereas a gay man can easily say and pretend he's straight so that he can serve. So I guess I fail to see the comparison. Sure, there's still prejudice against women who do serve, but I don't necessarily think that's comparable with openly gay and lesbian people who serve.

There's a big risk with being openly gay and serving. And, if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gets changed I don't men in the military are going to automatically accept and not target gays. Congress could pass laws to protect openly gay and lesbian people in the service, but that's not going to help much when you're on a submarine and being targeted by your fellow servicemen.

Posted by: brooklyneast05 Mar 2 2010, 09:17 PM

i still just don't understand it. if the gay guys aren't raping everyone now and the straight guys are aware that some people in with them could be gay, then why would that change all the sudden and everyone would go nuts? i don't see what the big deal is or how it's gonna change. they trust in gay people now to have their back, so what's gonna be different?

Posted by: Beenly Mar 2 2010, 09:23 PM

how would yall react if someone found out that george washington was down low in the military?!?!??

Posted by: spambot Mar 2 2010, 09:25 PM

QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Mar 2 2010, 08:17 PM) *
i still just don't understand it. if the gay guys aren't raping everyone now and the straight guys are aware that some people in with them could be gay, then why would that change all the sudden and everyone would go nuts? i don't see what the big deal is or how it's gonna change. they trust in gay people now to have their back, so what's gonna be different?


There are guys who do think there are absolutely no gay people in the military and that every gay guy wants to rape them.

A guy told me "I am going to serve my country is it too much to ask that I not be around any queers." Those are the guys who will flip shit.

Posted by: itanium Mar 2 2010, 09:33 PM

QUOTE(karmakiller @ Mar 2 2010, 08:05 PM) *
Highly, highly unlikely that a woman disguised as a man would pass a physical and not be caught, whereas a gay man can easily say and pretend he's straight so that he can serve. So I guess I fail to see the comparison. Sure, there's still prejudice against women who do serve, but I don't necessarily think that's comparable with openly gay and lesbian people who serve.

Remember, not all countries are as discriminating as the US when it comes to who they let in the service. And in the past, that was true even more often.

Posted by: Uso Mar 2 2010, 09:44 PM

And why so worried about just the gays?
there are indeed straight guys that have raped girls in iraq (source from past articles)

Posted by: itanium Mar 2 2010, 09:47 PM

I imagine it gets lonely on those boats too.

Posted by: karmakiller Mar 2 2010, 09:59 PM

I know this might make me look bad, but you also have to take into consideration that people in the service aren't just working together, they are living together, eating together, showering together. I agree that the "what if an openly gay man finds me sexually attractive" thought shouldn't apply, because I have been around and worked with plenty of men who I haven't found sexually attractive. There's also the issue that if you are a straight man in the military and are being harassed by a gay man, or are a gay man in the military and are being harassed by a straight man that you cannot just leave. I know it sounds weird, but if you're civilian and are being harassed because your sexual preference you still have to option to quit your job.

I completely agree that men and women should be allowed be open about their sexual preference and still serve, but so many people are saying "what does it matter if they are gay or not?", which can really be applied to both sides.

Posted by: Uso Mar 2 2010, 11:16 PM

it's the fact that they're gay, that makes themn "different" which is encouraged to pick them out

but what you said about the sexual attractions that could go around in places (gay or not) that can go back to the dont ask dont tell...right?

Posted by: synapse Mar 3 2010, 01:38 AM

QUOTE(karmakiller @ Mar 2 2010, 09:05 PM) *
Highly, highly unlikely that a woman disguised as a man would pass a physical and not be caught, whereas a gay man can easily say and pretend he's straight so that he can serve. So I guess I fail to see the comparison. Sure, there's still prejudice against women who do serve, but I don't necessarily think that's comparable with openly gay and lesbian people who serve.

There's a big risk with being openly gay and serving. And, if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gets changed I don't men in the military are going to automatically accept and not target gays. Congress could pass laws to protect openly gay and lesbian people in the service, but that's not going to help much when you're on a submarine and being targeted by your fellow servicemen.

Congress has already passed laws for the GLBT community. Whether they're in the military or not, they're still protected from hate crimes and discrimination.

Posted by: Uso Mar 3 2010, 05:16 PM

QUOTE(synapse @ Mar 3 2010, 01:38 AM) *
Congress has already passed laws for the GLBT community. Whether they're in the military or not, they're still protected from hate crimes and discrimination.

So not allowing gays to be in the military, Doesn't that technically count as discriminating them (if they are supposedly protected by that)

Posted by: mipadi Mar 3 2010, 05:45 PM

QUOTE(Uso @ Mar 3 2010, 05:16 PM) *
So not allowing gays to be in the military, Doesn't that technically count as discriminating them (if they are supposedly protected by that)


Yes, but the Supreme Court ruled in http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0453_0057_ZS.html that "Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than 'equity.'" In other words, the rights of individuals take a backseat to what is considered to be best for the military, so the military has certain legal protections to discriminate based on criteria that are illegal in the civilian sector.

Posted by: Uso Mar 3 2010, 07:39 PM

QUOTE(mipadi @ Mar 3 2010, 05:45 PM) *
Yes, but the Supreme Court ruled in http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0453_0057_ZS.html that "Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than 'equity.'" In other words, the rights of individuals take a backseat to what is considered to be best for the military, so the military has certain legal protections to discriminate based on criteria that are illegal in the civilian sector.

Oh I see, gotcha
that's quite a loophole there imo

Posted by: Mike Jun 3 2010, 07:01 AM

QUOTE(fameONE @ Feb 28 2010, 04:23 PM) *
Yes, there are gays in the military already. I don't care about what someone's sexual orientation is, but the moment this is an issue that's brought to the forefront, then the mission, whatever it is (combat or peacetime), will not get accomplished. You'll have troops that are paranoid that every gay guy is plotting a violent rape scheme, or, even worse, their brother in arms, might end up being a target.

Yea I'm sorry but those arguments are just validating homophobia. Servicemen should have something more to fear than homosexuals.

QUOTE(karmakiller @ Mar 3 2010, 03:59 AM) *
I know this might make me look bad, but you also have to take into consideration that people in the service aren't just working together, they are living together, eating together, showering together. I agree that the "what if an openly gay man finds me sexually attractive" thought shouldn't apply, because I have been around and worked with plenty of men who I haven't found sexually attractive. There's also the issue that if you are a straight man in the military and are being harassed by a gay man, or are a gay man in the military and are being harassed by a straight man that you cannot just leave. I know it sounds weird, but if you're civilian and are being harassed because your sexual preference you still have to option to quit your job.

I completely agree that men and women should be allowed be open about their sexual preference and still serve, but so many people are saying "what does it matter if they are gay or not?", which can really be applied to both sides.

I fail to see how it's acceptable to discriminate against gay people, just because a few straights are homophobic. Know what, I think they should repeal this then start discharging anybody that makes homophobic statements, because I think that flies in the face of US values that servicemen are supposedly fighting to uphold.

A lot of the military is made up of younger people who have no problem with gays in the military. If it isn't overturned now I reckon it will be in the future because the people who oppose it are getting older and will soon be on their way out.

Posted by: karmakiller Jun 3 2010, 05:55 PM

^ I think that there will still be homosexuals who serve in the military and won't be open about their sexual preference, because they will be concerned about hate crimes against them.

In all honesty, the only area of the military that I can see being concerned is infantry, because of the question of what if two men who are serving in combat are involved in a relationship with each other, will that affect how they perform their job? I think a lot would be quick to say that it would, just like if women were allowed to serve in infantry and one of them was involved with another member of that platoon, it might influence the decisions that one of them makes. And that could cost lives. But if the military puts restraints on relationships between men in certain job fields of the military that's still discrimination.

Posted by: Uso Jun 3 2010, 06:50 PM

It is basically just a big rule of homophobia dicks that are trying to get it their way

Posted by: Mike Sep 10 2010, 07:26 AM

QUOTE
A federal judge on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional and said she will issue an order to stop the government from enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. "Don't ask, don't tell" prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/dont-ask-dont-tell-unconstitutional-ruled-judge_n_711508.html

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 1 2010, 12:46 AM

A gay man/woman can fire a gun just as easily and a straight man/woman can.

Posted by: serotonin Oct 1 2010, 01:04 AM

QUOTE(lovebuddha @ Oct 1 2010, 12:46 AM) *
A gay man/woman can fire a gun just as easily and a straight man/woman can.

not true

Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 1 2010, 01:07 AM

QUOTE(serotonin @ Oct 1 2010, 02:04 AM) *
not true


how do you figure?