Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. News

    2. GrandTheftAuto.net - Website Re-Launch

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Support

    2. Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Tetsuo2501

Senate votes to end military ban on gays

Recommended Posts

Vercetti27
It doesn't f*cking matter if he's gay or not. It should never have mattered in the first place.

Exactly, so tell me what the point of "Don't ask don't tell" was if not to suppress their freedom of sexual orientation?

I'm not condoning that however when was it necessary for soldiers to express their sexuality ? what type of military is this? lol.gif

 

yeah I guess it is a human right to be able to express yourself however I can't imagine many gay men would feel like that while their 1000 miles from home living in some sh*tty military camp. personally I don't think it should matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
yeah I guess it is a human right to be able to express yourself however I can't imagine many gay men would feel like that while their 1000 miles from home living in some sh*tty military camp. personally I don't think it should matter

This is the crux of it.

 

Whether or not their sexuality is relavent on a battlefield or in a combat scenario is not the issue here. It's not about expressing yourself, or about whether or not they are going to out in Afghanistan.

It's simply a question of descrimination. The "don't ask, don't tell" rules were basically a thin veil that was pulled over the existing laws banning homosexuals from serving in the military in order to keep the rights groups happy. The new legislation enshrines that homosexuals have exactly the same rights as hetrosexuals in the US military when it comes to displaying their sexual preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonshield

@ Vercitti27 You're making a pretty hefty assumption. What does "express their sexuality" mean to you exactly? Sexual orientation shouldn't factor in how a military is run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit
It doesn't f*cking matter if he's gay or not. It should never have mattered in the first place.

Exactly, so tell me what the point of "Don't ask don't tell" was if not to suppress their freedom of sexual orientation?

Actually, DADT stopped the active enforcement of a pre-existing ban on gays in the military. So unless the new law also does away with the older regulation, repealing DADT might just mean open suppression of said freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
It doesn't f*cking matter if he's gay or not. It should never have mattered in the first place.

Exactly, so tell me what the point of "Don't ask don't tell" was if not to suppress their freedom of sexual orientation?

Actually, DADT stopped the active enforcement of a pre-existing ban on gays in the military. So unless the new law also does away with the older regulation, repealing DADT might just mean open suppression of said freedom.

Very true. Though the implication as stated in the original article is that repealing the DADT rules would go hand in hand with legislation to permit openly homosexual people from serving in the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonshield
It doesn't f*cking matter if he's gay or not. It should never have mattered in the first place.

Exactly, so tell me what the point of "Don't ask don't tell" was if not to suppress their freedom of sexual orientation?

Actually, DADT stopped the active enforcement of a pre-existing ban on gays in the military. So unless the new law also does away with the older regulation, repealing DADT might just mean open suppression of said freedom.

That's very true, dadt was a baby step in the right direction, but this is a greater step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit
It doesn't f*cking matter if he's gay or not. It should never have mattered in the first place.

Exactly, so tell me what the point of "Don't ask don't tell" was if not to suppress their freedom of sexual orientation?

Actually, DADT stopped the active enforcement of a pre-existing ban on gays in the military. So unless the new law also does away with the older regulation, repealing DADT might just mean open suppression of said freedom.

Very true. Though the implication as stated in the original article is that repealing the DADT rules would go hand in hand with legislation to permit openly homosexual people from serving in the military.

Yea, it's a good start, but it appears as if the new law only repeals 10 USC 654 but doesn't touch the UCMJ in chapter 47. So without another law to redefine (or erase) "sodomy" and such there, or an executive order to do same (which can be easily changed again with a new President..), it doesn't really mean much.

 

Well, I say a start, but it's likely the end for at least a decade since the politicians can pretend it's fixed now and the media will give them cover by glibly reporting implications and goods intentions in place of results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEETSAPRIK

 

@sweets, There is SO MUCH wrong with what you just said,

 

Point 1:

 

Also, it's one thing to be a small-minded, homophobic, bigot baptiste,

 

 

Not homophobic or anything

 

I can feel the hostility, It wasnt my intention to seem ignorant.

 

I made it extremly clear that I didnt know if it was or wasnt a fallacy.

 

Yes, I am ignorant about the gay community and gay people in general. I have not met, or had the opportunity to meet gay people and thus dont know much of anything about them. I never said the contrary, and it looks like you are ready to hang me for it, which is quite frankly abit ridiculous.

 

I pretty much asked a question, with no aggresivity, homophobia, or anything of the sort.

 

I may have some misconceptions, but you'd be wrong in thinking they cant be changed, the reason for those misconceptions are my ignorance to the subject at hand.

 

The inability of some people to simply read.

 

 

Point 2:

 

 

but to be completely unable to grasp a simple point even when it's made quite clear repeatedly.

 

You are obviously having a time issue. The only person who responded between my original question and my last post in the thread was Makeshyft. To which I made no comment what-so-ever on the actual topic. I simply mentionned his formulating was less than desirable. I also explicitly said that despite the formulation of the post that I understood what he said. Meaning that I got that gays could be as "tough" as hetero's. Meaning that again, before going into a mas rant you should perhaps read the relevant posts.

 

And as for the "quite clear repeatedly", all the "sensefull" answers came after (Sauron, Tchuck, Dog Day sunrise), I read them, and believed them. So no, the point was not made excessibly clear to me in the first hand, and at no point what-so-ever after the point had been made did I refute it or disbelieve it. So how could you say that I fail to grasp the simple point?

 

You just make no sense what-so-ever dude.

 

*sigh*

 

 

Not homophobic or anything

Prefacing homophobic comments with "not to sound homophobic or anything", doesn't keep them from being homophobic.

 

I can feel the hostility, It wasnt my intention to seem ignorant.

Not intending to seem ignorant doesn't stop one from seeming ignorant.

 

I made it extremly clear that I didnt know if it was or wasnt a fallacy.

Thinking your ignorance might be correct isn't an excuse. I'm sure a lot of people actually believed that blacks shouldn't fight in war because of bad night vision, or brains too small to operate machinery, or whatever bullsh*t excuse they were using at the time.

 

I pretty much asked a question, with no aggresivity, homophobia, or anything of the sort.

Again, just because you think it wasn't homophobic doesn't mean it wasn't. What you actually did was make homophobic statements in your first two posts, and not ask a single question until someone called you on those statements.

 

 

You are obviously having a time issue. The only person who responded between my original question and my last post in the thread was Makeshyft. To which I made no comment what-so-ever on the actual topic. I simply mentionned his formulating was less than desirable. I also explicitly said that despite the formulation of the post that I understood what he said. Meaning that I got that gays could be as "tough" as hetero's. Meaning that again, before going into a mas rant you should perhaps read the relevant posts.

Your so-called "original question" didn't even come out until after people called you on the ignorant comments in your first two posts. There weren't any questions in either of those. And instead of reading his post and realizing that he was just saying there are some homosexuals out there that are tougher than you, me, and even him, you decided to take offense at the idea, and then call them retarded assumptions. I hate to break it to you, but somewhere on the planet there is a gay guy that can kick your ass. Somewhere on the planet there's a member of every race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. that can kick both our asses. It's not a "wild assumption" it's a certainty, and there's no reason to be all offended by it.

 

Let me help you out here, by altering the subject of your "not homophobic" statements so you can more easily see what you did wrong.

 

 

Just gonna point this out...but what about between a brave hetero and a brave lesbian/gay.

Not homophobic or anything but I know who I'd pick.

Just gonna point this out...but what about between a brave white guy and a brave black guy.

Not racist or anything but I know who I'd pick.

 

But as far as killing, I'd just rather have a hetero.

But as far as killing, I'd just rather have a white guy.

 

See how that sounds now. Being gay is about as relevant as one's color in terms of how well they can do the job, and by that I mean not relevant at all.

 

 

You also dont know me, who I am or could be. I know making wild assumptions over the net is cool and stuff, but its completly retarded.

Kind of like all the wild assumptions you made before someone called you on them, sending you into your little hissy fit?

 

Instead of just getting the point, you decided to spend the next few posts calling his points and his posts retarded, absurd, stupid, etc., as well as telling him to f*ck off. You claimed that you were "just asking a question" when you didn't actually ask a single f*cking question until someone called you on the ignorant comments in your first two posts. You repeatedly insisted that your homophobic comments weren't homophobic.

 

Pretty much the only thing I agree with you on is your admission that posts like your last one "made no comment what-so-ever on the actual topic." If you'd like to continue taking someone else's two sentence comment as an excuse to go whining off-topic for a few paragraphs about how your homophobia isn't homophobic, or how everyone else is being "retarded" and should "f*ck off" feel free to PM me, because D&D probably isn't the place for it.

 

(edit)

Seriously? Well just because you insist on continuing to spam the thread with your off-topic drivel doesn't mean I'm going to continue to. I guess I'll PM you.

 

Edited by Sweets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baptiste

So wait. Let me see if I've got this right.

 

 

Not homophobic or anything

Prefacing homophobic comments with "not to sound homophobic or anything", doesn't keep them from being homophobic.

 

I dont see how saying that I prefer a hetero to fight besides me rather than a gay is homophobic. That's like saying I'm racist to the chinese because I prefer japanese food.

 

 

 

I can feel the hostility, It wasnt my intention to seem ignorant.

Not intending to seem ignorant doesn't stop one from seeming ignorant.

 

 

I meant ignorant in the sense that what I said could have offended someone exactly because I didnt know what I was talking about. I made that clear many times. But I'll say it again, I dont know any gay people, you may, and thus have a better perception of the situation, and I'll willingly believe what you say. But no where did I state that 1, I was right and 2, I knew what I was talking about. If anything I simply stated an opinion out of a misconception, excuse me.

 

 

 

I made it extremly clear that I didnt know if it was or wasnt a fallacy.

Thinking your ignorance might be correct isn't an excuse. I'm sure a lot of people actually believed that blacks shouldn't fight in war because of bad night vision, or brains too small to operate machinery, or whatever bullsh*t excuse they were using at the time.

 

 

I never thought my ignorance might be correct. It was an opinion, I was completly aware I could be completly wrong.

 

 

 

I pretty much asked a question, with no aggresivity, homophobia, or anything of the sort.

Again, just because you think it wasn't homophobic doesn't mean it wasn't. What you actually did was make homophobic statements in your first two posts, and not ask a single question until someone called you on those statements.

 

What precisely did I say that was homophobic? Preffering having a hetero to a gay as a brother in arms? If you think thats homophobic then that's just paranoid. Saying that gays are less tough than hetero's. Not only is being less tough not consistently a negative comment, but it was just a statement out of my misconceptions/general population opinion. Hardly homophobic.

 

 

You are obviously having a time issue. The only person who responded between my original question and my last post in the thread was Makeshyft. To which I made no comment what-so-ever on the actual topic. I simply mentionned his formulating was less than desirable. I also explicitly said that despite the formulation of the post that I understood what he said. Meaning that I got that gays could be as "tough" as hetero's. Meaning that again, before going into a mas rant you should perhaps read the relevant posts.

Your so-called "original question" didn't even come out until after people called you on the ignorant comments in your first two posts. There weren't any questions in either of those. And instead of reading his post and realizing that he was just saying there are some homosexuals out there that are tougher than you, me, and even him, you decided to take offense at the idea, and then call them retarded assumptions. I hate to break it to you, but somewhere on the planet there is a gay guy that can kick your ass. Somewhere on the planet there's a member of every race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. that can kick both our asses. It's not a "wild assumption" it's a certainty, and there's no reason to be all offended by it.

Yes my comments were ignorance, I made that VERY clear, would you like me to say it again? They were also innocent, I meant nothing by it and it deffinitly was not an attack on gays like you are trying to make it out to be.

 

Second off, I clearly stated I had understood what he was trying to say. I said it my post after MM thought I had also not understood, I suggest you read it.

I didnt call what he was trying to say retarded, I called the way he said what he said retarded, not quite the same thing.

After the sensefull answers that came AFTER, I understood that gays can be tough. I did say before that I DIDNT KNOW and was asking for an explanation. You are essentially raging on about something you think I misunderstood, when I clearly got it, and I said in the post.

 

The rest of your post is of no concern to me because you are assuming that I thought that I was right 100 percent. I wasnt, or I wouldnt have gone about it that way.

 

The difference with your analogy is that in this day and age there are no doubt to weather or not blacks are equally rough to whites, so its hardly comparable. They are, if anything their tougher. Wait I'm sorry, was that racist towards whites?

If you were reffering to your earlier comment about blacks not being able to use machinery and the like, then I would personally not blame someone of that time for not being sure if blacks are indeed stupider or not if he doesnt know any and a certain large portion of the people around him are saying that they are infact stupid.

 

Their are MANY people who strongly believe or have at least heard rumors that gays are infact less "tough". Its also somewhat popularized by television and what not. Having not actually met any people and having not researched the whole thing, can you blame me for not being sure?

 

 

You also dont know me, who I am or could be. I know making wild assumptions over the net is cool and stuff, but its completly retarded.

Kind of like all the wild assumptions you made before someone called you on them, sending you into your little hissy fit?

They wernt wild assumptions. I never claimed what I said was correct, if anything I was actually quite vague as to avoid such a situation and to show I wasnt really sure what I was saying.

And I'll just refer you to the beggining of this post AND my last post where I thouroughly explain I simply did not agree the way he said what he said. I never refuted the content.

 

Your last 2 paragraphs are again completly missing the point. So I'll just say what I said to the last guy, try to read and comprehend what I say instead of launching yourself in the great defence of the gays.

 

But yes, I did decide to spend my best post calling the way he said what he said was retarded, because it was. And I did tell him to f*ck off, because not only was his responce inconclusive and uninformative, but he clearly showed no desire what-so-ever to answer my question and clearly stated it, so yes, he can still f*ck off. And yes, I repeatedly insisted that I was trying for my comments not to seem homophobic, exactly so that we would not end up in the situation we are now. I simply dont hate gays, its that simple.

 

I also noticed how you absolutly love to take what I said out of context and twisting it for what you need to say. Hmm. I think you'll be in politics right next too me.

Edited by baptiste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs
I dont see how saying that I prefer a hetero to fight besides me rather than a gay is homophobic. That's like saying I'm racist to the chinese because I prefer japanese food.

No, that's like saying you're a racist because you prefer Chinese people to Japanese people, on no other basis than their race.

 

Why exactly would you prefer a heterosexual man to fight beside you?

 

 

I dont know any gay people, you may, and thus have a better perception of the situation, and I'll willingly believe what you say. But no where did I state that 1, I was right and 2, I knew what I was talking about. If anything I simply stated an opinion out of a misconception, excuse me.

 

Seriously? Your argument is that you don't know any gay people and have no idea of what you're talking about, and that therefore people should deferential towards your ignorance and not have the temerity to call you on your bigotry? That's bull. If you admit that you had no idea what you were talking about why did you feel the need to post something and then arc up at anyone who corrected you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baptiste

 

I dont see how saying that I prefer a hetero to fight besides me rather than a gay is homophobic. That's like saying I'm racist to the chinese because I prefer japanese food.

No, that's like saying you're a racist because you prefer Chinese people to Japanese people, on no other basis than their race.

 

I'm not allowed to prefer the Japanese people to the Chinese? What about Pizza's? Am I allowed to prefer Dominos to Pizza hut?

 

 

 

I dont know any gay people, you may, and thus have a better perception of the situation, and I'll willingly believe what you say. But no where did I state that 1, I was right and 2, I knew what I was talking about. If anything I simply stated an opinion out of a misconception, excuse me.

 

Seriously? Your argument is that you don't know any gay people and have no idea of what you're talking about, and that therefore people should deferential towards your ignorance and not have the temerity to call you on your bigotry? That's bull. If you admit that you had no idea what you were talking about why did you feel the need to post something and then arc up at anyone who corrected you?

 

I didnt actually say much in the way of Bigotry. I said I'd rather have a hetero in a fight next to me rather than a gay. No harm done there.

 

You seem to be under the pretense that I argued against gays in the army, I didnt, I asked a question to others who most likely had more experience in that domain. Something wrong with that?

 

I didnt "arc up" at anyone on the actual issue, because I never disagreed with it. I simply said that the way Makeshyft said what he said was retarded. Little did I know that responding with little to no detail and sense would actually summon him an army.

 

 

tl;dr I dont hate gays, I dont think they are unfit for the armed services and I dont think hetero's do a better job in the army than them. However as a personal preference I would prefer fighting with a hetero than a gay, its not an attack or anything of the sort, simply personal preference, very much in the same way that I simply prefer Subway to Macdonalds.

 

Can we move on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock

Maybe we should make a topic for those of us who have served to voice our opinion without the Monday morning quarterbacks chirping in their 2 cents...

 

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEoS

As someone who is actually in the military, I can say that I don't really care if gays are in the military from a moral standpoint. What I can say is that allowing gays in the military would be a logistical nightmare that I don't think outsiders can fully understand without having been in the service.

 

So, the DADT barrier falls, gays can openly join. Time for them to go to recruit training. But where do you send them? In the USMC, male recruits can go to Parris Island or San Diego, while female recruits can only go to Parris Island. Male recruits get trained by either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Battalion, while females go to 4th. Where will the gays go? An important part of recruit training is that there is no sexual temptation. I remember being forced to stare at a wall for 10 minutes because a female platoon was marching down the road and we weren't allowed to look at them. You can't put them with the heterosexual male battalions because that's not fair to them, and you certainly can't put them on their own, that's just asking for trouble after lights out.

 

Once out in the fleet, similar issues would be had with billeting. Where do they live? Sexual activity is forbidden in the barracks. Once again, you can't room them with a straight man, you can't room them with a gay man, and you definitely can't room them with a female. What do you do, give them their own room? That's unfair to everyone else.

 

When it comes to being part of the actual workforce, however, I don't think there's any issue at all.

 

Edit: Also, I'm aware that DADT actually doesn't fix any of these issues, but now the government will be forced to deal with it. Why, just last month, a Marine in my unit woke up to find his roommate sucking his dick. He promptly smashed the sucker's 42 inch plasma TV over his head. So really, DADT doesn't help much either.

Edited by TEoS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

TEoS, I agree with your point fully. However, the lift has been passed, and next week Barack Obama will be signing the bill to finalise the statement.

 

BBC Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs
Maybe we should make a topic for those of us who have served to voice our opinion without the Monday morning quarterbacks chirping in their 2 cents...

 

Just a thought.

Why is that? Do I have to have driven a bus to have opinions on public transport? Should I leave all of my interests in politics aside because I have never been elected to public office?

 

If you really think this is an issue that can only be discussed be those affected, why bother including those of us who have served in the armed forces? Going by your criteria the only people allowed to have an opinion are gay servicemen and women, as they were the people affected by DADT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*MURDOC*
Maybe we should make a topic for those of us who have served to voice our opinion without the Monday morning quarterbacks chirping in their 2 cents...

 

Just a thought.

Why is that? Do I have to have driven a bus to have opinions on public transport? Should I leave all of my interests in politics aside because I have never been elected to public office?

 

If you really think this is an issue that can only be discussed be those affected, why bother including those of us who have served in the armed forces? Going by your criteria the only people allowed to have an opinion are gay servicemen and women, as they were the people affected by DADT.

Thats a good point, especially in a topic where people seem to be denouncing segregation and inward thinking, a statement like the one made above just doesnt seem to fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

 

As someone who is actually in the military, I can say that I don't really care if gays are in the military from a moral standpoint. What I can say is that allowing gays in the military would be a logistical nightmare that I don't think outsiders can fully understand without having been in the service.

 

So, the DADT barrier falls, gays can openly join. Time for them to go to recruit training. But where do you send them? In the USMC, male recruits can go to Parris Island or San Diego, while female recruits can only go to Parris Island. Male recruits get trained by either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Battalion, while females go to 4th. Where will the gays go? An important part of recruit training is that there is no sexual temptation. I remember being forced to stare at a wall for 10 minutes because a female platoon was marching down the road and we weren't allowed to look at them. You can't put them with the heterosexual male battalions because that's not fair to them, and you certainly can't put them on their own, that's just asking for trouble after lights out.

 

Once out in the fleet, similar issues would be had with billeting. Where do they live? Sexual activity is forbidden in the barracks. Once again, you can't room them with a straight man, you can't room them with a gay man, and you definitely can't room them with a female. What do you do, give them their own room? That's unfair to everyone else.

 

When it comes to being part of the actual workforce, however, I don't think there's any issue at all.

 

Edit: Also, I'm aware that DADT actually doesn't fix any of these issues, but now the government will be forced to deal with it. Why, just last month, a Marine in my unit woke up to find his roommate sucking his dick. He promptly smashed the sucker's 42 inch plasma TV over his head. So really, DADT doesn't help much either.

This is all operating on the assumption that we know who all the gays are in the military and are forced to do something about it. I've always kind of assumed and supported the notion that if DADT were repealed it would be "don't ask, don't tell, but if you were to tell no big deal". There are tons of closeted homosexuals in the army today, where is this logistical nightmare you speak of? They don't ask for your sexual identity, that shouldn't change, thus there will be no problems. All the gay military members, including the thousands who have been discharged, went through the process you went through presumably without incident. I fail to grasp where this is an issue.

 

I actually read an article once that explained that DADT was worse for gays than even the policy preceding it because it made removing gays from the military a quick and streamlined process. Homosexuals beforehand merely had to lie to those asking them before 1993 and no further issue was made of it, kicking someone out on those grounds was a lengthy process. I'll see if I can't find the article.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock
Maybe we should make a topic for those of us who have served to voice our opinion without the Monday morning quarterbacks chirping in their 2 cents...

 

Just a thought.

Why is that? Do I have to have driven a bus to have opinions on public transport? Should I leave all of my interests in politics aside because I have never been elected to public office?

 

If you really think this is an issue that can only be discussed be those affected, why bother including those of us who have served in the armed forces? Going by your criteria the only people allowed to have an opinion are gay servicemen and women, as they were the people affected by DADT.

Because only those who have experienced DADT and the implications it has can possibly fathom what it means. To regular, everyday folks the only thing it means is a social change to what is generally accepted in society today. To those in the actual military, it has a much deeper impact. Very few "other" jobs have a life or death risk associated with them at the level experienced in the military. Driving a bus you don't depend on the person you picked up at 7th street to save your life. I personally do not care if gays serve in the military, but their service should be restricted much like women are. The attitudes of soldiers having to actually serve greatly affects combat status.

 

As bad as it sounds, and as basic as I can put it, gays can and should be classified in different ways. There are people who can fully function and are perfectly capable soldiers, who just happen to be gay. No problems. But there are also the gays who are literally walking flamers, more worried about their pedicures and grooming standards then anything else. They should be excluded from combat roles.

 

But lets face it, 99% of the time the latter group of gays wouldn't even consider joining the armed service. But there will always be the exception to the norm, and that worries me for the sake of those who depend on the person next to them to stay alive.

 

As Teos said, if you haven't served, you can't possibly fully understand what having gays in the military would mean. No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I merely said that there should be a different topic for those who have served to voice their opinions without those who haven't served getting all butt hurt about it, when the literally can't understand our point of view.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ass reamer
As bad as it sounds, and as basic as I can put it, gays can and should be classified in different ways. There are people who can fully function and are perfectly capable soldiers, who just happen to be gay. No problems. But there are also the gays who are literally walking flamers, more worried about their pedicures and grooming standards then anything else. They should be excluded from combat roles.

 

But lets face it, 99% of the time the latter group of gays wouldn't even consider joining the armed service. But there will always be the exception to the norm, and that worries me for the sake of those who depend on the person next to them to stay alive.

Change that to 100% and maybe I'd agree with you. No one joins the military without fully understanding the implications of that decision. Justifying blatant discrimination of gays with this argument is incredibly shaky, and borderline bullsh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock
As bad as it sounds, and as basic as I can put it, gays can and should be classified in different ways.  There are people who can fully function and are perfectly capable soldiers, who just happen to be gay.  No problems.  But there are also the gays who are literally walking flamers, more worried about their pedicures and grooming standards then anything else.  They should be excluded from combat roles. 

 

But lets face it, 99% of the time the latter group of gays wouldn't even consider joining the armed service.  But there will always be the exception to the norm, and that worries me for the sake of those who depend on the person next to them to stay alive.

Change that to 100% and maybe I'd agree with you. No one joins the military without fully understanding the implications of that decision. Justifying blatant discrimination of gays with this argument is incredibly shaky, and borderline bullsh*t.

So never mind the people who join to avoid jail? Or who join because they need work? If everyone understood the implications of joining, nobody would be discharged prematurely now would they? It wasn't a statement of fact, it was a statement that it can/and more then likely has happened. A recruiter signs up someone and promises them a desk job stateside and they end up in Georgia training to deploy to Afghanistan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs
As bad as it sounds, and as basic as I can put it, gays can and should be classified in different ways. There are people who can fully function and are perfectly capable soldiers, who just happen to be gay. No problems. But there are also the gays who are literally walking flamers, more worried about their pedicures and grooming standards then anything else. They should be excluded from combat roles.

 

But lets face it, 99% of the time the latter group of gays wouldn't even consider joining the armed service. But there will always be the exception to the norm, and that worries me for the sake of those who depend on the person next to them to stay alive.

 

As Teos said, if you haven't served, you can't possibly fully understand what having gays in the military would mean. No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I merely said that there should be a different topic for those who have served to voice their opinions without those who haven't served getting all butt hurt about it, when the literally can't understand our point of view.

So what you're saying is that gay people are just like anyone else and range from battle hardened psychos to cowardly lions. And you recognise that gay people who don't want to be in the military won't join the military. However you go on from there to somehow conclude that all gay people in the military should be banned from self identifying because a bunch of ignorant idiots think that gay men just strut around all day thinking about cocktail dresses and pedicures.

 

Of all the groups of people who have ranging attitudes towards combat, why single out gay people for special treatment? Some morons think black people just wander around high on crack and dreaming of watermelon, should we ban black people from serving just to appease bigots? How about latinos, surely they're up to something behind those swarthy skins and shirty brown eyes. And don't get me started on white people. Did you know some white people have been charged with murder? I certainly don't want any people like that in my army! Best to ban the whole damn lot of them, because there's absoutely no way to identify the individual personalities of member of any subgroup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tubbs51

here's my opinion on this subject....

 

if they can fire a gun accurately and are smart and athletic enough to serve in the military and if they want to then so be it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock
As bad as it sounds, and as basic as I can put it, gays can and should be classified in different ways.  There are people who can fully function and are perfectly capable soldiers, who just happen to be gay.  No problems.  But there are also the gays who are literally walking flamers, more worried about their pedicures and grooming standards then anything else.  They should be excluded from combat roles. 

 

But lets face it, 99% of the time the latter group of gays wouldn't even consider joining the armed service.  But there will always be the exception to the norm, and that worries me for the sake of those who depend on the person next to them to stay alive.

 

As Teos said, if you haven't served, you can't possibly fully understand what having gays in the military would mean.  No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I merely said that there should be a different topic for those who have served to voice their opinions without those who haven't served getting all butt hurt about it, when the literally can't understand our point of view.

So what you're saying is that gay people are just like anyone else and range from battle hardened psychos to cowardly lions. And you recognise that gay people who don't want to be in the military won't join the military. However you go on from there to somehow conclude that all gay people in the military should be banned from self identifying because a bunch of ignorant idiots think that gay men just strut around all day thinking about cocktail dresses and pedicures.

 

Of all the groups of people who have ranging attitudes towards combat, why single out gay people for special treatment? Some morons think black people just wander around high on crack and dreaming of watermelon, should we ban black people from serving just to appease bigots? How about latinos, surely they're up to something behind those swarthy skins and shirty brown eyes. And don't get me started on white people. Did you know some white people have been charged with murder? I certainly don't want any people like that in my army! Best to ban the whole damn lot of them, because there's absoutely no way to identify the individual personalities of member of any subgroup.

You are the perfect example of those who don't understand. Which is why I'm done in this topic.

 

But to address your confusion, most flaming (girlie) gays wouldn't join the military, but then again MOST girls don't play football.

 

Let them in the military, but the ultra metro girlie (for lack of better word) need be restricted like women are.

yawn.gif

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
As bad as it sounds, and as basic as I can put it, gays can and should be classified in different ways.  There are people who can fully function and are perfectly capable soldiers, who just happen to be gay.  No problems.  But there are also the gays who are literally walking flamers, more worried about their pedicures and grooming standards then anything else.  They should be excluded from combat roles. 

 

But lets face it, 99% of the time the latter group of gays wouldn't even consider joining the armed service.  But there will always be the exception to the norm, and that worries me for the sake of those who depend on the person next to them to stay alive.

 

As Teos said, if you haven't served, you can't possibly fully understand what having gays in the military would mean.  No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I merely said that there should be a different topic for those who have served to voice their opinions without those who haven't served getting all butt hurt about it, when the literally can't understand our point of view.

So what you're saying is that gay people are just like anyone else and range from battle hardened psychos to cowardly lions. And you recognise that gay people who don't want to be in the military won't join the military. However you go on from there to somehow conclude that all gay people in the military should be banned from self identifying because a bunch of ignorant idiots think that gay men just strut around all day thinking about cocktail dresses and pedicures.

 

Of all the groups of people who have ranging attitudes towards combat, why single out gay people for special treatment? Some morons think black people just wander around high on crack and dreaming of watermelon, should we ban black people from serving just to appease bigots? How about latinos, surely they're up to something behind those swarthy skins and shirty brown eyes. And don't get me started on white people. Did you know some white people have been charged with murder? I certainly don't want any people like that in my army! Best to ban the whole damn lot of them, because there's absoutely no way to identify the individual personalities of member of any subgroup.

You are the perfect example of those who don't understand. Which is why I'm done in this topic.

 

But to address your confusion, most flaming (girlie) gays wouldn't join the military, but then again MOST girls don't play football.

 

Let them in the military, but the ultra metro girlie (for lack of better word) need be restricted like women are.

yawn.gif

Look, as someone whose worked closely (including in direct civilian assitance roles) with various parts of the military over the last what, five years, I struggle to see your point too. Sexuality is no more a definer of personality than race or religion is- sure, there is the common stereotyped conception of homosexuals which you allude to, but they are in a minority and there are significant numbers of hetrosexuals who fit the same description. The principal is that someone with that kind of defined personality isn't going to be interested in joining the military in the first place, regardless of their sexuality or any other attribute.

 

Most estimates say that 15-20% of people are either homosexual or bisexual. I'm sorry, but the proportion of people I meet who correspond to you're narrow minded definition of sexuality (based almost predominantly on personality trates that have nothing to do with it) is nowhere near 1/5. Similarly, in the UK Armed Forces, with whom I have worked and with whom there is no regulation regarding sexuality, it could be feasible to assume that the same 1/5 rule applies- and I have yet to find a single soldier whose too busy checking their nails to dodge an RPG.

 

The way I see it, the people in the military who can't accept that the person who is standing next to them might be homosexual are the people who don't deserve the privilage of serving their country. If you're willing to put down the person fighting next to you on account of their sexuality you evidently have no understanding of camaraderie. Or, for that matter the principal that every person who joins the military is doing it with the intent of being a professional soldier- and I don't understand how someone can be so closed minded as to believe that sexuality can affect ability in combat. Remember, everyone who goes into a conflict zone has recieved a certain degree of training designed to help them to do their job- unless the US military runs a revolving door policy (though you never know at times like this) everyone is going to have to have proven their ability to operate in a combat-like scenario.

 

 

 

I'm fast seeing a distinction between those who serve in the military, and those who actually understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin...

I like shylock's argument when looked at from an entertainment perspective. Its funny.

 

Ok...I get how there are going to be "the exception to the norm" slipping by. But look at this logically: how many other random straight guys and gals get into the military who are not mentally prepared to handle the rigors or mental strain it can put on a person? In basic training I watched 2 or 3 guys bitch out per 40+ man platoon in our 4 platoon company. Basic f*cking training.

 

You are using the "but what if a girly gay man gets in" defense when its the least and most minuscule of our worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

To quote Rudy Goldwater from memory: "You don't need to be straight to shoot straight."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock
I like shylock's argument when looked at from an entertainment perspective. Its funny.

 

Ok...I get how there are going to be "the exception to the norm" slipping by. But look at this logically: how many other random straight guys and gals get into the military who are not mentally prepared to handle the rigors or mental strain it can put on a person? In basic training I watched 2 or 3 guys bitch out per 40+ man platoon in our 4 platoon company. Basic f*cking training.

 

You are using the "but what if a girly gay man gets in" defense when its the least and most minuscule of our worries.

You put in time...army correct?

 

Then you of all people should be able to understand this...

 

We have a military to win wars, not project civil rights agendas to the world. And to win wars, you HAVE to have cohesion throughout the ranks. It isn't a solo effort on any level. And if allowing openly gay people to serve undermines the ability of the military as a whole, then hell yes I oppose it. I personally don't care, I have no problems with gays. But unfortunately, not everyone shares that mindset. And until that mindset changes...openly gay men and women should be restricted to certain roles, to help mesh the opinions and start working toward completely tearing down the wall.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
We have a military to win wars, not project civil rights agendas to the world. And to win wars, you HAVE to have cohesion throughout the ranks. It isn't a solo effort on any level. And if allowing openly gay people to serve undermines the ability of the military as a whole, then hell yes I oppose it. I personally don't care, I have no problems with gays. But unfortunately, not everyone shares that mindset. And until that mindset changes...openly gay men and women should be restricted to certain roles, to help mesh the opinions and start working toward completely tearing down the wall.

Most developed nations permit openly homosexual service members without any issues. If an armed service as well-trained and heavily experienced as the IDF can survive 30 years of next to constant warfare without homosexuality cripping it, then why would the US armed forced be so incapable of doing so?

Why should the contribution of perfectly legitimate soliders be be snuffed out because of the narrow-mindedness and stupidity of a small minority? If everyone though that way, slavery would still be legal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

Because only those who have experienced DADT and the implications it has can possibly fathom what it means.  To regular, everyday folks the only thing it means is a social change to what is generally accepted in society today.  To those in the actual military, it has a much deeper impact.  Very few "other" jobs have a life or death risk associated with them at the level experienced in the military.  Driving a bus you don't depend on the person you picked up at 7th street to save your life.  I personally do not care if gays serve in the military, but their service should be restricted much like women are.  The attitudes of soldiers having to actually serve greatly affects combat status.

Well, if you're not happy about the whole idea of civilian control of the military, then maybe you shouldn't have signed up for such a dangerous job? tounge.gif Regardless of whether this decision is good or bad for logistics/morale/whatever, you knew your bosses (Congress, Executive, and, well, voters in general) would be mostly retarded going in. While it's usually a good idea for any boss to get input from employees, it's also usually a bad idea for employees to tell their bosses to shut up because they "haven't served" or some such..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise

 

Well, if you're not happy about the whole idea of civilian control of the military, then maybe you shouldn't have signed up for such a dangerous job? tounge.gif Regardless of whether this decision is good or bad for logistics/morale/whatever, you knew your bosses (Congress, Executive, and, well, voters in general) would be mostly retarded going in. While it's usually a good idea for any boss to get input from employees, it's also usually a bad idea for employees to tell their bosses to shut up because they "haven't served" or some such..

What this man (very accurately) put. If you don't want to serve the government (and therefore the people and their oppinions), join a PMC.

Shylock- You're one of a very small minority- even in the military- who feels that permitting open homosexuals in frontline roles would be harmful. There's no proof of this being the case anywhere else in the world, why in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.