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

    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 IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

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

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    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

    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. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Tetsuo2501

Senate votes to end military ban on gays

Recommended Posts

ilikensrs

 

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.

Look I don't have a problem with black people, but unfortunately not everyone shares that mindset. And until that mindset changes, I just think we should restrict black people to certain roles. There's absolutely no way we could train recruits to work together as a team and respect one another despite differences, so until there are no more racist people in the army blacks should be prevented from taking combat roles.

 

sigh.gif If only there were some instution run by the government, an institution which was sworn to protect our freedoms, and had values such as respect, honor, selfless service and personal courage. Oh well.

Edited by ilikensrs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock

 

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.

Look I don't have a problem with black people, but unfortunately not everyone shares that mindset. And until that mindset changes, I just think we should restrict black people to certain roles. There's absolutely no way we could train recruits to work together as a team and respect one another despite differences, so until there are no more racist people in the army blacks should be prevented from taking combat roles.

 

sigh.gif If only there were some instution run by the government, an institution which was sworn to protect our freedoms, and had values such as respect, honor, selfless service and personal courage. Oh well.

That was exactly the mindset back in the 40's when President Truman ordered segregation in the armed forces to cease. And it was successfully integrated over the course of several (6) years.

 

So thanks for proving my point. icon14.gif

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.

Look I don't have a problem with black people, but unfortunately not everyone shares that mindset. And until that mindset changes, I just think we should restrict black people to certain roles. There's absolutely no way we could train recruits to work together as a team and respect one another despite differences, so until there are no more racist people in the army blacks should be prevented from taking combat roles.

 

sigh.gif If only there were some instution run by the government, an institution which was sworn to protect our freedoms, and had values such as respect, honor, selfless service and personal courage. Oh well.

That was exactly the mindset back in the 40's when President Truman ordered segregation in the armed forces to cease. And it was successfully integrated over the course of several (6) years.

 

So thanks for proving my point. icon14.gif

Nothing that's successful in the military sphere ever happens overnight. Look at the transition to mechanised warfare 1918-40. Most nations still hadn't completed it by the outbreak of the Second World War. By the time people had adapted to the AirLand Battle doctrine devised in the 80's to counter the Soviets in Europe, it was rendered almost completely null and void by the switch away from regular to irregular warfare by most adversaries of NATO.

 

No policy, be it in the political or military sphere, succeeds if it's based on the narrow-minded prejudices of a small minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin...

So we have to worry about homofobia amongst the straight military members and worry about getting to overly effeminate girly men getting in. Oh man, this is just as bad as the race wars during the civil rights era.

 

sarcasm.gif

 

The only ones screaming about this issue are the guys who are homofobic idiots or only understand what a homosexual does or how they act from common stereotypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus'En'Hitler420

Since when is there freedom to do anything in the army? How did "don't ask, don't tell" ban gays? Seems to me most people just want to make this a gay issue when all I see is "Don't ask, don't tell... anything about your sexuality because it doesn't matter in the army."

 

Case closed. Now lets all clap because something totally got done, yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

 

How did "don't ask, don't tell" ban gays?

Because if they found out you were gay they kicked you out, that's how. Nobody ever got kicked out of the army for revealing his heterosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge

The way I see it, there are two options here.

 

1. Allow anybody to join, regardless of sexuality, race, religion etc, and run the risk of causing friction in the ranks amongst those less accepting soldiers.

 

2. Restrict those people whop can join and incur the wrath of the general public, the PC crowd, etc.

 

Now, I will argue for any man or woman's right to serve their country - if somebody feels the desire to do so, they should be allowed to give it a shot. However, I must admit that I agree with Shylock to a certain extent, in that armed forces are for fighting and winning wars, not fulfilling quotas or ticking human rights boxes.

 

Let's say your infantry is the highest-trained, most efficient fighting unit in the history of your nation, perhaps the world. It has a proven wartime track record, and you live in a country in a geographical area racked by civil war and unrest for decades. By and large, your average infantryman has no intention of fighting alongside homosexual men, and would actively make life pretty difficult for a gay recruit. I'm not condoning that attitude for a second, but going by the two options above, by accepting individuals into your infantry who are markedly different to the bulk of your existing unit, you run the risk of reducing its efficiency, and the risk is particularly high lower down in the chain of command, where you can, on balance, expect lesser education levels and lower tolerance toward minorities of any kind. This is not military-specific, before any of our resident vets call me on this; it's sociology 101, and applies to any group of individuals working together towards a common objective. What do you do, remove your highly trained but bigoted soldiers, and replace them with men who are more accepting but less skilled in battle, to satisfy human rights? You'll get your ass handed to you, but hey, at least it's fair.

 

Again, I would support anyone who wishes to join up, but at the end of the day, it's an army - when their job is potentially as important as the independence and safety of millions, maybe we should ease up a little on the super-inclusive hiring policies every other industry works under, and let them pick the most suitable people for the job. If some of those happen to be gay/black/female/Jewish, then so be it, but if not, why try and force it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
The way I see it, there are two options here.

 

1. Allow anybody to join, regardless of sexuality, race, religion etc, and run the risk of causing friction in the ranks amongst those less accepting soldiers.

 

2. Restrict those people whop can join and incur the wrath of the general public, the PC crowd, etc.

 

Now, I will argue for any man or woman's right to serve their country - if somebody feels the desire to do so, they should be allowed to give it a shot. However, I must admit that I agree with Shylock to a certain extent, in that armed forces are for fighting and winning wars, not fulfilling quotas or ticking human rights boxes.

 

Let's say your infantry is the highest-trained, most efficient fighting unit in the history of your nation, perhaps the world. It has a proven wartime track record, and you live in a country in a geographical area racked by civil war and unrest for decades. By and large, your average infantryman has no intention of fighting alongside homosexual men, and would actively make life pretty difficult for a gay recruit. I'm not condoning that attitude for a second, but going by the two options above, by accepting individuals into your infantry who are markedly different to the bulk of your existing unit, you run the risk of reducing its efficiency, and the risk is particularly high lower down in the chain of command, where you can, on balance, expect lesser education levels and lower tolerance toward minorities of any kind. This is not military-specific, before any of our resident vets call me on this; it's sociology 101, and applies to any group of individuals working together towards a common objective. What do you do, remove your highly trained but bigoted soldiers, and replace them with men who are more accepting but less skilled in battle, to satisfy human rights? You'll get your ass handed to you, but hey, at least it's fair.

 

Again, I would support anyone who wishes to join up, but at the end of the day, it's an army - when their job is potentially as important as the independence and safety of millions, maybe we should ease up a little on the super-inclusive hiring policies every other industry works under, and let them pick the most suitable people for the job. If some of those happen to be gay/black/female/Jewish, then so be it, but if not, why try and force it?

I would agree with this if it was the case that people's sexuality WAS causing friction between members of the armed forces- but it's not. There are hundreds of thousands of homosexuals already serving in the US forces, and as I've said before most of developed nations have already made it legal for uncloseted homosexuals to serve without any real resistance or any measurable effect on the performance of soldiers involved. There are going to be select few who oppose any inclusivising policy due to their inherrent personal prejudices- and besides, based on it's recent performances, the US armed forces need all the additional help they can get.

 

The way I see it, at the end of the day, every person who enters a battlefield scenario has a certain degree of training and professionalism. Now, though I'd like to hope that all soldiers have a degree of acceptance for their fellow solders- regardless of any defining characterstics, I know it's not true in every case. However, do I believe that homosexuality would be such a sticking point between serving individuals that it would damage their operational ability? Not on you're nelly. These same issues have been discussed in many nations who have already permitted uncloseted homosexuals from joining and despite initial resistance, there has never been any evidence of it damaging the effectiveness of fighting forces. As far as I'm concerned, there are far bigger things for US soldiers to worry about than whether the man next to them bats for the other side- the fact the military elite have spend 10 years trying to fight a counter-insurgency like it's 1989 in the green fields of Germany and the Soviets have just invaded, for one.

 

If there was any evidence of it being likely to impact on the performance of the armed forces, then I'd have a tendancy to side with Shylock too. But there isn't- the studies done on the subject in the mid 00's display a range of oppinions ranging from apathy through the broad spectrum of not-giving-a-damn to complete lack of interest in the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock

Actually, dog day sunrise...

 

According to a gay rights policy center gay, lesbian and bi sexuals account for approximately 13000 active duty personnel.

 

FTR there are 1430895 people on active duty.

 

Almost hundreds of thousands... sigh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
Actually, dog day sunrise...

 

According to a gay rights policy center gay, lesbian and bi sexuals account for approximately 13000 active duty personnel.

 

FTR there are 1430895 people on active duty.

 

Almost hundreds of thousands... sigh.gif

66000 according to the FAS, and federal eye. Though I was basing my original figure on the accepted 15% ratio between heterosexual and homosexual people in the wider environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claude4Catalina

"it doesn't matter where the finger had been, as long as its on the damn trigger, why should it matter?"

 

thats just my way of looking at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock
Actually, dog day sunrise...

 

According to a gay rights policy center gay, lesbian and bi sexuals account for approximately 13000 active duty personnel.

 

FTR there are 1430895 people on active duty.

 

Almost hundreds of thousands... sigh.gif

66000 according to the FAS, and federal eye. Though I was basing my original figure on the accepted 15% ratio between heterosexual and homosexual people in the wider environment.

That was actually exact wpost article I was looking at. Although if were are including guard/reserve its 66000 out of 2.3 million.

 

Interesting that active gay members are less then 1% but reserve its over 3%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
Actually, dog day sunrise...

 

According to a gay rights policy center gay, lesbian and bi sexuals account for approximately 13000 active duty personnel.

 

FTR there are 1430895 people on active duty.

 

Almost hundreds of thousands... sigh.gif

66000 according to the FAS, and federal eye. Though I was basing my original figure on the accepted 15% ratio between heterosexual and homosexual people in the wider environment.

That was actually exact wpost article I was looking at. Although if were are including guard/reserve its 66000 out of 2.3 million.

 

Interesting that active gay members are less then 1% but reserve its over 3%.

Personally, I do wonder how they come up with these statistics in an environment where it's banned. I think they're about as reliable as the statistics for illitic drug use- I.E not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
Actually, dog day sunrise...

 

According to a gay rights policy center gay, lesbian and bi sexuals account for approximately 13000 active duty personnel.

 

FTR there are 1430895 people on active duty.

 

Almost hundreds of thousands... sigh.gif

66000 according to the FAS, and federal eye. Though I was basing my original figure on the accepted 15% ratio between heterosexual and homosexual people in the wider environment.

That was actually exact wpost article I was looking at. Although if were are including guard/reserve its 66000 out of 2.3 million.

 

Interesting that active gay members are less then 1% but reserve its over 3%.

Personally, I do wonder how they come up with these statistics in an environment where it's banned. I think they're about as reliable as the statistics for illitic drug use- I.E not at all.

I can't see them being accurate to any degree myself. Although maybe now that it is perfectly legal to be a homosexual in the army we shall see more people answering the survey questions about their sexuality with honesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock

I'm sure they have some semi reliable way of finding stuff out. Then slap "approximately" on it and BOOM you have yourself a stat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
I'm sure they have some semi reliable way of finding stuff out. Then slap "approximately" on it and BOOM you have yourself a stat.

If it's anything like the system we used for remote measuring (read vague estimation) of the short-term effectiveness of Royal Marine operations in Helmand Province, I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it (and everyone who devised it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theodoro

Problems arise, like they have in recent years when you start to give people special treatment for being different. In recent years the problem has been gender, ethnicity and religion. The British Army to keep with current social climates, is desperate to appear more modern, so every time a promotion board sits(imagine that in your job to get promoted, you have to compete yearly with thousands for 30 places) loads of decent lads are overlooked so that they can promote more women and ethic minorities. The amount of useless squaddies promoted, seemingly because they ticked a few social acceptance boxes has become ludicrous. It is difficult to justify this to a guy on his third tour of Afghanistan with a family to support, when a girl who is always on the sick and can't go on tour is promoted ahead of him and becomes his boss.

 

This is where resentment and discrimination comes in, and by having a special rule, you are dropping somebody right into the middle of it because they are gay. Now they are one of the lads, new rule and everything that happens to them will be scrutinised, if they get promoted, people will question they didn't get it on merit.

 

Sad, but unfortunately true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEETSAPRIK

Personally I'd rather see the various branches of the military accept people who are gay, and are willing to serve along side homophobes, than keep them out because of a few homophobes that don't wish to serve along side gays.

 

You don't get to say "I don't like blacks, so I won't do my job with that black guy in my unit." You don't get to say that with people of any race, religion, gender, etc. Someone who outranks you tells you who you're serving with, and you do it. I mean these are all the same arguments they used to keep blacks from fighting, and women, and one by one all these backward ways of thinking are being phased out. It should be no different when dealing with any other group. Hell, they'll have started having women serving on US nuclear submarines by Dec 2011-Jan 2012, and not in the limited ways (civilian techs for just a few days, midshipmen on an overnight during training, etc.) that they have so far.

 

Admittedly there is a slight difference when dealing with women/gay men/lesbian women (as compared to people of a specific race or religion), but not so much of one that it should keep them from serving. Sure, they might have to make certain allowances (like in regards to bathrooms/showers and sleeping arrangements), and it might take them a while to figure everything out, but it isn't at all impossible.

 

The argument that it might take a while for these people to be fully integrated, and for the military to figure out what they're going to do and how they're going to do it isn't complete BS. Still, it was going to happen eventually, and it would take a while to figure out the logistics no matter when they started, so it is good (IMO) that they're going to start now rather than later.

 

And if there are people serving now that might refuse to serve alongside gays/lesbians, let them refuse and be discharged, or jailed, or whatever they do to soldiers that refuse to follow orders.

 

F*ck, do you have any idea how many people from gangs join the military just to learn how to be better criminals. Getting weapons training, learning military tactics, then taking that knowledge back to ms13 or whatever gang they're in? I love the idea that there are people in the military that are right now serving alongside of, and trusting their lives to thieving, drug dealing, raping, murdering, scumbag gang members who happen to be straight, but the idea of serving with a lesbian or homosexual that isn't a piece of sh*t criminal, no, that's somehow too much to take.

 

I mean it's a real shame that the country has decided to do something that might go against these people's strict moral code. sarcasm.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
Problems arise, like they have in recent years when you start to give people special treatment for being different. In recent years the problem has been gender, ethnicity and religion. The British Army to keep with current social climates, is desperate to appear more modern, so every time a promotion board sits(imagine that in your job to get promoted, you have to compete yearly with thousands for 30 places) loads of decent lads are overlooked so that they can promote more women and ethic minorities. The amount of useless squaddies promoted, seemingly because they ticked a few social acceptance boxes has become ludicrous. It is difficult to justify this to a guy on his third tour of Afghanistan with a family to support, when a girl who is always on the sick and can't go on tour is promoted ahead of him and becomes his boss.

 

This is where resentment and discrimination comes in, and by having a special rule, you are dropping somebody right into the middle of it because they are gay. Now they are one of the lads, new rule and everything that happens to them will be scrutinised, if they get promoted, people will question they didn't get it on merit.

 

Sad, but unfortunately true.

An unfortunate but true set of circumstances. Positive discrimination is still discrimination as far as I'm concerned. All promotions, whether in the military or otherwise- especially in the military, if I'm honest- should be based solely on performance. I'm a great supporter of blind interviewing.

 

However, permitting openly gay members of the armed forces to serve without the fear of repercussions isn't giving them special treatment, it's giving them equal treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus'En'Hitler420

So I hear there are still regulations against transgender service members. What's everyones thoughts on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
So I hear there are still regulations against transgender service members. What's everyones thoughts on that?

They should be allowed to serve as long as they're within Army guidelines for proper conduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChanandlerBong

People seem to be treating this as if it's some brand new, as yet untried social experiment that those crazee liberals have dreamed up. The fact is, this works in just about every modern military in the world, why shouldn't it in the USA? I really don't see how you could have a real opposition to this; it's not as if any of the stereo-typed "queen" type gays would bother joining the military. Even if they did, they'd have to wise up sharpish or else they'd get their arses handed to them by their own side. All the LGBT people in the military now aren't suddenly going to change their behaviour, they're going to do the job well as they always have done.

 

Touching on another point from up there, I absolutely despise positive discrimination. It's one of the worst things that has come about in recent years socially and it really is shocking. People should be chosen for jobs or anything in fact, on the basis of their ability to do the task, who gives a flying f*ck what gender/religion/race/sexuality/anything someone is? If a white person is better, they should get the job. If a lesbian, female, Muslim person is the better for the task, they should do it. There's nothing more to it than that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge
I really don't see how you could have a real opposition to this

If you don't understand why there are any misgivings, then I'm guessing you haven't read any of the last five or so pages, and simply saw the title and took the opportunity to up your post count. I suggest you go back and read the rest of the topic - there are plenty of arguments on both sides.

 

I don't anyone's actively opposed it yet, but I think the general consensus is that any problems arising from this move will be caused not by homosexuals joining the armed forces, but by unaccepting existing military personnel. No-one's suggesting that a fondness for the same sex inhibits your ability to serve your country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
I don't anyone's actively opposed it yet, but I think the general consensus is that any problems arising from this move will be caused not by homosexuals joining the armed forces, but by unaccepting existing military personnel. No-one's suggesting that a fondness for the same sex inhibits your ability to serve your country.

But perhaps an open natured homosexual who is trying to serve their country but admits to being gay will be inhibited. Not by their sexual preference directly, but indirectly by various others who can't accept them for what they are.

 

We will certainly see the gay equivalent of a glass ceiling placed on top of them, a pink floral ceiling perhaps? I can see homosexuals having to work twice as hard in the military to gain a promotion. In that environment, I don't really think we should be worried about positive discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown
We will certainly see the gay equivalent of a glass ceiling placed on top of them, a pink floral ceiling perhaps? I can see homosexuals having to work twice as hard in the military to gain a promotion. In that environment, I don't really think we should be worried about positive discrimination.

You sir are a bigot. Just like you can't have "reverse" racism, a glass ceiling is a glass ceiling no matter the party targeted.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner

 

We will certainly see the gay equivalent of a glass ceiling placed on top of them, a pink floral ceiling perhaps? I can see homosexuals having to work twice as hard in the military to gain a promotion. In that environment, I don't really think we should be worried about positive discrimination.

You sir are a bigot. Just like you can't have "reverse" racism, a glass ceiling is a glass ceiling no matter the party targeted.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

I direct you to variations of the glass ceiling term. Apparently it is called the glass closet. Not all types of glass ceiling are as easy to break through as others, a gay man in the armed services could face a bigger and tougher glass ceiling to break through than gay people in other industries, simply due to the way in which the military works.

 

And of course you can't have "reverse" racism, as that would be implying that racism is a vector quality that can have a direction. And since there is no concept of "forward" racism then that can't be true. It says in legal terms that: "The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." I would define so-called "positive discrimination" as racism in that sense.

 

And was it really necessary to resort to name-calling? I am not exhibiting tolerance or animosity towards those who oppose my beliefs, nor am I obstinately devoted to my own prejudices. I am not aware that I even have any prejudices. Therefore I can't be a "bigot" as you say. Please get to know me better before throwing insults at me next time.

Edited by nerner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChanandlerBong
I really don't see how you could have a real opposition to this

If you don't understand why there are any misgivings, then I'm guessing you haven't read any of the last five or so pages, and simply saw the title and took the opportunity to up your post count. I suggest you go back and read the rest of the topic - there are plenty of arguments on both sides.

 

I don't anyone's actively opposed it yet, but I think the general consensus is that any problems arising from this move will be caused not by homosexuals joining the armed forces, but by unaccepting existing military personnel. No-one's suggesting that a fondness for the same sex inhibits your ability to serve your country.

I just want to thank you for taking that out of context.

 

To your other point; yes that probably will be a problem, but in the heat of battle, is it really going to affect anything? I would say a lot of gay people in the army will still stay "closeted" for the minute anyway, there certainly isn't going to be some massive outing party. It's going to be a slow transition into finding out who is gay or not. This will make it much easier for other servicemen/women to accept the change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dog_day_sunrise
To your other point; yes that probably will be a problem, but in the heat of battle, is it really going to affect anything?

I would go out on a limb and say that any member of the military who would let their irriational phobia of homosexuals affect their ability on operation would be, to quote the internet meme, "doing it wrong". Besides, the military is as much about discression and intelligent decision-making as it is about direct combat and all the bravado it brings. In order to be a successful member, you need to be able to balance both. A team of young, trigger-happy, gung-ho soldiers is f*ck all use in most modern miltiary scenarios- you need real professionals, which some thing, that, from my experience, many sectors of the military lack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

haven't been following this story/thread really, but have seen it around alot on the news and such.

 

Saw this on google news earlier and made me kinda chuckle and thought I'd throw it over here

 

Gates said DADT is still in effect, despite Obama's passing of the law.

 

How does this make people feel? Does it make people realize that America isn't all that great.. I mean even if we get a law to pass, if someone doesn't like it they can still enforce it. Just look at the Cali cannabis laws they passed, yet the feds can still go in there and do whatever they want despite state laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The-King
haven't been following this story/thread really, but have seen it around alot on the news and such.

 

Saw this on google news earlier and made me kinda chuckle and thought I'd throw it over here

 

Gates said DADT is still in effect, despite Obama's passing of the law.

 

How does this make people feel? Does it make people realize that America isn't all that great.. I mean even if we get a law to pass, if someone doesn't like it they can still enforce it. Just look at the Cali cannabis laws they passed, yet the feds can still go in there and do whatever they want despite state laws.

Did you actually read the article? My guess is a big, resounding 'no.'

 

Just because the repeal passed doesn't mean it instantly goes into effect, which is the entire jist of what it's getting across. But I suppose, as per usual, you're just looking for an excuse to shamelessly jab at the American government in the most sensationalist manner possible.

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.