|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:10 pm
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=7134
i read up on it and i think the army is wrong about the way they treat lesbians and gays.
btw sorry i have been gone for so long but i have had finals in my colledge courses.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:17 am
Once again the legacy of slick willy's political whoring haunts us still to this day.
then again, this could behelpful if there's ever a draft...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:33 pm
In the general support areas, it should be fine. Though I've reservations with their involvment in direct combat regiments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:18 pm
I don't see why not. A theory I've kind of had for a while is "If you hate them so much, why not just send them to war and have them die there?" I'm not saying that I hate homosexuals, but I never really got the theory that the oppressed minorities couldn't go to war. Blacks couldn't go, women couldn't go, homosexuals couldn't go. The only reason that I can really think of is that they don't want those types of people representing their military and/or they don't want to bring down morale. Those are good reasons I suppose but I still stand by my question.
I also like the theory that I heard a comedian say. It went something like this: "Hell, I'd want a gay guy protecting my a**. Be better than having a straight guy do it because at least it gives him more to fight for." It could be a true statement, you never know. I don't think it's going to really play out like that but I think it's funny to ponder how that'd work out.
I don't see any problem with it as long as it's not going to bring down the morale of the troops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:01 am
ButterBalls I don't see why not. A theory I've kind of had for a while is "If you hate them so much, why not just send them to war and have them die there?" I'm not saying that I hate homosexuals, but I never really got the theory that the oppressed minorities couldn't go to war. Blacks couldn't go, women couldn't go, homosexuals couldn't go. The only reason that I can really think of is that they don't want those types of people representing their military and/or they don't want to bring down morale. Those are good reasons I suppose but I still stand by my question.
I also like the theory that I heard a comedian say. It went something like this: "Hell, I'd want a gay guy protecting my a**. Be better than having a straight guy do it because at least it gives him more to fight for." It could be a true statement, you never know. I don't think it's going to really play out like that but I think it's funny to ponder how that'd work out.
I don't see any problem with it as long as it's not going to bring down the morale of the troops. they were allowed to fight in wars, just not in the same unit if openly gay people are oppressed minorities as you claim, then logic would lead to the conclusion that they would be put in all gay units or in seperate fighting squads segregated the dont ask dont tell is for their own benefit mostly, it keeps them from being the victim of beatings and abuse, besides i dont see why it matters, if your a soilder thats about it i dont care if your gay or not, i dont care so much in fact that id rather not know
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:15 am
No gay should be allowed in our military thats working day and night to protect this country we live in. Think about it a 5 star gay general, I think if people want to join the military they must be heterosexual. And if they what if they do somehow get in the military. It would distract the rest of the non gay troops fighting wars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:11 am
Elite076 No gay should be allowed in our military thats working day and night to protect this country we live in. Think about it a 5 star gay general, I think if people want to join the military they must be heterosexual. And if they what if they do somehow get in the military. It would distract the rest of the non gay troops fighting wars. First, speak coherent English. Second, use correct grammer, spelling, AND punctuation. Lastly, no. It WOULDN'T distract the heterosexual troops. First of all, they (more-than-likely) wouldn't know. Second, even if they did, the only thing your thinking about on the battle-field is your job, and surviving. If someone saves your life, their your best friend for the rest of it. Out in war, sexuality doesn't mean a damn thing. Unless, there's a necrohiliac soldier running around somewhere...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:15 pm
Was a bad idea posing as a solution to a problem, yes. Personally, I don't see any reason for a soldier's sexual orientation to affect anything. Not like "homosexual" means "rapist," or "traitor to the country," or whatever, any more than "heterosexual" does. Elite076 It would distract the rest of the non gay troops fighting wars. How would it do that? pk2 if openly gay people are oppressed minorities as you claim, then logic would lead to the conclusion that they would be put in all gay units or in seperate fighting squads segregated Like we do for black soldiers and woman soldiers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:01 am
Wendigo Was a bad idea posing as a solution to a problem, yes. Personally, I don't see any reason for a soldier's sexual orientation to affect anything. Not like "homosexual" means "rapist," or "traitor to the country," or whatever, any more than "heterosexual" does. Elite076 It would distract the rest of the non gay troops fighting wars. How would it do that? pk2 if openly gay people are oppressed minorities as you claim, then logic would lead to the conclusion that they would be put in all gay units or in seperate fighting squads segregated Like we do for black soldiers and woman soldiers? if it honestly doesnt mean as much as you say it does, then what is the problem? its simple, the military if you want to serve in it, does not let gays in, but unlike being black, gay is not a skin color and you can only be homosexual if you openly admit it, so why does it matter if they dont admit it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:21 am
pimpkilla2 Wendigo Was a bad idea posing as a solution to a problem, yes. Personally, I don't see any reason for a soldier's sexual orientation to affect anything. Not like "homosexual" means "rapist," or "traitor to the country," or whatever, any more than "heterosexual" does. Elite076 It would distract the rest of the non gay troops fighting wars. How would it do that? pk2 if openly gay people are oppressed minorities as you claim, then logic would lead to the conclusion that they would be put in all gay units or in seperate fighting squads segregated Like we do for black soldiers and woman soldiers? if it honestly doesnt mean as much as you say it does, then what is the problem? its simple, the military if you want to serve in it, does not let gays in, but unlike being black, gay is not a skin color and you can only be homosexual if you openly admit it, so why does it matter if they dont admit it? And you can hide you race, and appear to be white, as well. And change the appearance of your physical identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 11:04 am
Th' problem is that there is no reason to refuse gay soldiers from serving. If they want to, and they're capable of it, why should the military refuse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 2:42 pm
Nekogal2-Please keep in mind that this law is not only in the Army, but also pertains to all the other military branches as well.
As for me I am in the US Army and am heterosexual, even so I have met homosexual soldiers. They have the right to fight for their country without anyone harrassing them about it, etc. They have the same rights as me and my other fellow comrades. There have been many homosexuals in the US Military that have accomplished very much in their military career and have also made the same sacrafices as me and other soldiers.
Many high-ranking NCOs (non-commisioned officers) and officers (including former 2-star generals) have already admitted to being gay. Even though I disagree with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy I also have to admit that it is valid. Why? it still gives the homosexual inviditual the right to serve in the military. Also keep in mind that the military expects every member to be honest and trustworthy. They do this because of sensitive operations.
All I'm saying is that homosexuals have the right to fight, and think of it this way: the policy may anger a lot of people including myself because in my mind I could careless weather someone is homosexual or not. As long as they are able to go through the training like I did and others, and be able to get the job done. But at least homosexuals are given the right to fight for their country.
Just my own opinion though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:17 pm
I'm at a cross roads, my personal believe is no, but as the poster before me said, as a brother in arms, its a completly differnt matter, wow this is the first time I'm stumped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
