by KasDaya » Fri May 15, 2009 6:41 am
by Colonic Immigration » Fri May 15, 2009 6:48 am
by Bryn Shander » Fri May 15, 2009 6:49 am
by KasDaya » Fri May 15, 2009 6:51 am
by Colonic Immigration » Fri May 15, 2009 6:53 am
by Bryn Shander » Fri May 15, 2009 6:55 am
by Bluth Corporation » Fri May 15, 2009 7:04 am
Colonic Immigration wrote:No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.
by Colonic Immigration » Fri May 15, 2009 7:09 am
Bluth Corporation wrote:Colonic Immigration wrote:No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.
In principle, I agree with you.
In practice, though, if the presence of homosexuals upsets enough people who want to and would otherwise be inclined to join the military to the point where it adversely affects recruitment and retention, then if the military is to be full strength as a practical matter the choice becomes between conscription and banning homosexuals. As much as I hate to say it, the latter is the least bad of two bad options.
I don't know whether that's the case in the U.S., but it should be consideration.
by Mt Id » Fri May 15, 2009 7:15 am
Colonic Immigration wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:Colonic Immigration wrote:No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.
In principle, I agree with you.
In practice, though, if the presence of homosexuals upsets enough people who want to and would otherwise be inclined to join the military to the point where it adversely affects recruitment and retention, then if the military is to be full strength as a practical matter the choice becomes between conscription and banning homosexuals. As much as I hate to say it, the latter is the least bad of two bad options.
I don't know whether that's the case in the U.S., but it should be consideration.
Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.
I don't don't see that it would affect the number of people joining. Infact it might increase it. Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.
by Colonic Immigration » Fri May 15, 2009 7:20 am
It upsets people because they think that the NATURAL way of living is one man, one women. When you start throwing in two men or two women you start messing with people's traditions. Nobody likes having their routines screwed with.
by Bluth Corporation » Fri May 15, 2009 7:22 am
Colonic Immigration wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:Colonic Immigration wrote:No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.
In principle, I agree with you.
In practice, though, if the presence of homosexuals upsets enough people who want to and would otherwise be inclined to join the military to the point where it adversely affects recruitment and retention, then if the military is to be full strength as a practical matter the choice becomes between conscription and banning homosexuals. As much as I hate to say it, the latter is the least bad of two bad options.
I don't know whether that's the case in the U.S., but it should be consideration.
Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.
Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.
by Bryn Shander » Fri May 15, 2009 7:28 am
Colonic Immigration wrote:Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.
Colonic Immigration wrote:I don't don't see that it would affect the number of people joining. Infact it might increase it. Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.
by Vervaria » Fri May 15, 2009 7:31 am
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.
Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.
Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint
Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.
Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.
by Bryn Shander » Fri May 15, 2009 7:33 am
Vervaria wrote:The way I see it, it doesn't matter if a bunch of bigots are upset by homosexuality, there's no more reason to ban gays than there was to ban blacks. They have as much right to serve in the military as anyone else. (I'm sure there were plenty of racists in the military upset by serving with blacks, and in fact there were some high-ranking officers opposed to integrating the military, yet it didn't destroy unit cohesion or anything like that.)
by Colonic Immigration » Fri May 15, 2009 7:33 am
Bryn Shander wrote:Colonic Immigration wrote:Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.
Spoken like someone with no military experience. Volunteer militaries are the most conservative groups you'll ever find. The entire point of basic training is to remove the individuality and make everyone the same. Homosexuals do not fit into that mold, and will make people wonder if Private Smith is watching their ass or staring at it.Colonic Immigration wrote:I don't don't see that it would affect the number of people joining. Infact it might increase it. Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.
Anti-homosexual conservatives greatly outnumber homosexual conservatives to such an extent that the latter group is statistically meaningless. Homosexuals are by and large very progressive as a group. They're not the type that join the military in significant numbers regardless of if homosexuality is banned.
by Vervaria » Fri May 15, 2009 7:35 am
Bryn Shander wrote:Vervaria wrote:The way I see it, it doesn't matter if a bunch of bigots are upset by homosexuality, there's no more reason to ban gays than there was to ban blacks. They have as much right to serve in the military as anyone else. (I'm sure there were plenty of racists in the military upset by serving with blacks, and in fact there were some high-ranking officers opposed to integrating the military, yet it didn't destroy unit cohesion or anything like that.)
Blacks were in segregated units for the majority of the history of the US military, and sexuality is even more polarizing than race.
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.
Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.
Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint
Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.
Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.
by Bryn Shander » Fri May 15, 2009 7:37 am
Colonic Immigration wrote:Bryn Shander wrote:Colonic Immigration wrote:Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.
Spoken like someone with no military experience. Volunteer militaries are the most conservative groups you'll ever find. The entire point of basic training is to remove the individuality and make everyone the same. Homosexuals do not fit into that mold, and will make people wonder if Private Smith is watching their ass or staring at it.Colonic Immigration wrote:I don't don't see that it would affect the number of people joining. Infact it might increase it. Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.
Anti-homosexual conservatives greatly outnumber homosexual conservatives to such an extent that the latter group is statistically meaningless. Homosexuals are by and large very progressive as a group. They're not the type that join the military in significant numbers regardless of if homosexuality is banned.
Obviously I've had no military experience- I'm 15.
Everyone would be similar if enough gays joined.
And who cares if a couple of homophobes don't want gays there-fuck em. They're scum.
Vervaria wrote:Bryn Shander wrote:Vervaria wrote:The way I see it, it doesn't matter if a bunch of bigots are upset by homosexuality, there's no more reason to ban gays than there was to ban blacks. They have as much right to serve in the military as anyone else. (I'm sure there were plenty of racists in the military upset by serving with blacks, and in fact there were some high-ranking officers opposed to integrating the military, yet it didn't destroy unit cohesion or anything like that.)
Blacks were in segregated units for the majority of the history of the US military, and sexuality is even more polarizing than race.
I was referring to when the US military was integrated. And frankly, no matter how polarizing sexuality is or isn't, it's no excuse to stop someone from serving their country.
by Colonic Immigration » Fri May 15, 2009 7:41 am
here aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.
by Bluth Corporation » Fri May 15, 2009 7:42 am
Colonic Immigration wrote:And who cares if a couple of homophobes don't want gays there-fuck em. They're scum.
by Bluth Corporation » Fri May 15, 2009 7:44 am
Colonic Immigration wrote:There aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.
wtf!? Cos I haven't been in the military I have no say on it. That's fucking retarded.
And as I've said if the army was more gay-friendly, more would join.
by Vervaria » Fri May 15, 2009 7:45 am
If allowing one sexuality harms the military as a whole, be it by hurting unit cohesion or recruitment, it is in the best interest of the military to tell the homosexuals to find another way to serve their country.
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.
Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.
Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint
Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.
Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.
by Bryn Shander » Fri May 15, 2009 7:47 am
Colonic Immigration wrote:There aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.
wtf!? Cos I haven't been in the military I have no say on it. That's fucking retarded.
And as I've said if the army was more gay-friendly, more would join.
Vervaria wrote:If allowing one sexuality harms the military as a whole, be it by hurting unit cohesion or recruitment, it is in the best interest of the military to tell the homosexuals to find another way to serve their country.
And what's the evidence that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would hurt either recruitment or unit cohesion? Seriously, many members of the military are already serving alongside homosexuals anyway, so what would change except that they'd be serving openly, and you wouldn't have to kick out valuable military members (Like Arabic translators) for being gay. Bigotry is not acceptable under any circumstances.
by Colonic Immigration » Fri May 15, 2009 7:53 am
Bryn Shander wrote:Colonic Immigration wrote:There aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.
wtf!? Cos I haven't been in the military I have no say on it. That's fucking retarded.
And as I've said if the army was more gay-friendly, more would join.
Yes. Because you haven't served you have no say. You don't have the slightest clue what it's like in the military.
And no, more won't join. The ones that would want to join already do and they generally keep their mouths shut about their sexuality. Allowing them to be openly homosexual won't bring any more in. Homosexuals are for the most part progressives that are not fond of war, killing, and other masculine things like that. What allowing open homosexuality will do, however, is turn plenty of young conservatives, especially religious types, away from the military because they don't want to 'get grouped up with no goddamned fags'.
by Vervaria » Fri May 15, 2009 7:54 am
Bryn Shander wrote:Colonic Immigration wrote:There aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.
wtf!? Cos I haven't been in the military I have no say on it. That's fucking retarded.
And as I've said if the army was more gay-friendly, more would join.
Yes. Because you haven't served you have no say. You don't have the slightest clue what it's like in the military.
And no, more won't join. The ones that would want to join already do and they generally keep their mouths shut about their sexuality. Allowing them to be openly homosexual won't bring any more in. Homosexuals are for the most part progressives that are not fond of war, killing, and other masculine things like that. What allowing open homosexuality will do, however, is turn plenty of young conservatives, especially religious types, away from the military because they don't want to 'get grouped up with no goddamned fags'.
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.
Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.
Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint
Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.
Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.
by Bluth Corporation » Fri May 15, 2009 7:56 am
Vervaria wrote:And what's the evidence that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would hurt either recruitment or unit cohesion?
Seriously, many members of the military are already serving alongside homosexuals anyway, so what would change except that they'd be serving openly,
Exactly. and you wouldn't have to kick out valuable military members (Like Arabic translators) for being gay.
Bigotry is not acceptable under any circumstances.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Atrito, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Kannap, Ravemath, Sarolandia, Statesburg, Valentine Z
Advertisement