Happy Atheist Forum

Should homosexuals be allowed to serve in the armed forces while being open about their sexuality? My vote is yes.

As long as the guy next to me doesn't want to die as much as I don't want to die, I don't really care where he puts his penis.  

In this time, when we are recruiting people who lack high school diplomas over openly gay people, we are exhibiting gross stupidity. There is no good reason to turn down any healthy person who is willing to serve and capable of doing the job. Frikkin homophobic jacka$$es.

If they want to put their lives on the line, the military should respect them the same way they respect everyone else who wants to join. They should also allow transgendered individuals to enlist and serve.

Quote from: "Wraitchel"In this time, when we are recruiting people who lack high school diplomas over openly gay people, we are exhibiting gross stupidity. There is no good reason to turn down any healthy person who is willing to serve and capable of doing the job. Frikkin homophobic jacka$$es.

The dark side of me wants to agree with that decision, though. If the gays have generally higher education than the uneducated good ol' boys that are volunteering to put their lives on the line, isn't that statistically a boon? I mean, if you have to sacrifice a member of a group, do you sacrifice the ones who are most able to raise intelligent, socially responsible children, or the ones who propagate superstition and prejudice?

Wow, I think I'm promoting a kind of eugenics. Haha.

What difference does it make?  I can't imagine what difference sexuality makes in a person's ability to shoot a gun.

According to this article (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362505,00.html), the Israeli military allowed openly gay men and women to serve, starting in 1983 with some restrictions; and they lifted all restrictions in 1993.

Quote... in Israel, as well as in the other 23 nations with a similar policy on homosexuals in the military, service by gay soldiers had not had an adverse effect on the military.

Quote from: "Wraitchel"In this time, when we are recruiting people who lack high school diplomas over openly gay people, we are exhibiting gross stupidity. There is no good reason to turn down any healthy person who is willing to serve and capable of doing the job. Frikkin homophobic jacka$$es.

Tell that to the enlisted blockhead jackasses who think that every gay person is out to rape as many bums as possible. It is very difficult to change opinion, especially when it is formed out of ignorance.

Having said that, my cousin is friends with a few guys in the British army who are unofficially gay. All their peers know this and are cool with it. Ironically, it is the officers who have the problem with it. They are subject to a fair amount of ridicule but that is where it stops. I guess opinion changes from regiment to regiment.

well
men are allowed to serve
women are allowed to serve
I don't think that the weapons will start missfiring, or bombs will self detonate because a aman/wooman likes having sex with the same sex

Quote from: "Wraitchel"In this time, when we are recruiting people who lack high school diplomas over openly gay people, we are exhibiting gross stupidity. There is no good reason to turn down any healthy person who is willing to serve and capable of doing the job. Frikkin homophobic jacka$$es.

From a recruiting perspective, it would make more sense to enlist a young, less educated person so you can "mold" them a bit easier.

For nations in which the majority is not prejudice against gays, I absolutely see no harm.

But let me ask a question - Would it be fair to a homosexual to surround them in a batallion of primarily red-neck homophobes, and send him to a hot-spot? Do you not think that the rednecks would be less likely to go out of their way to cover someone that they hate?
If the answer is 'no' - then should there be special treatment for homosexuals in the military? Maybe a special gay batallion? But wouldn't that too result in "seperate but equal" style discrimination?

If the rednecks act in a way that puts the lives of others at risk, then they get punished whether the person is gay or not.

I don't see a problem with them serving, as long as their pansy arms can shoot a gun and they don't feignt at the sight of a disembowled enemy corpse like the pathetic wussy fags they are.




















 

Quote from: "SSY"I don't see a problem with them serving, as long as their pansy arms can shoot a gun and they don't feignt at the sight of a disembowled enemy corpse like the pathetic wussy fags they are.

 Not all gays act like the stereotype you are depicting.

Where does that stereotype come from anyways? I've known several gay men who are anything but "pansies" or even feminine. I think the ones (such as Ross Mathews) are pretentious just to show pride in their sexuality. Which there's nothing wrong with that. But I think that homosexuals in general have been given an unfair stereotype.

Quote from: "BadPoison"For nations in which the majority is not prejudice against gays, I absolutely see no harm.

But let me ask a question - Would it be fair to a homosexual to surround them in a batallion of primarily red-neck homophobes, and send him to a hot-spot? Do you not think that the rednecks would be less likely to go out of their way to cover someone that they hate?
If the answer is 'no' - then should there be special treatment for homosexuals in the military? Maybe a special gay batallion? But wouldn't that too result in "seperate but equal" style discrimination?

By that reasoning, atheists, pagans, satanist, pro-choice and a number of other groups rednecks hate shouldn't be allowed to join the military either.  I doubt the redneck men were too happy when women were allowed to join; I think most of them are over that now.  They can get over being around gay people too; it would be good for them.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"They can get over being around gay people too; it would be good for them.

Denying religion and spirituality would be good for them, too! One life-altering, soul-shattering change at a time, I suppose.  

Quote from: "SSY"...and they don't feignt at the sight of a disembowled enemy corpse like the pathetic wussy fags they are...

And who said it would be an enemy corpse they'd have to see and not their best friend's? Seeing someone you know in enough pieces to make any jigsaw puzzle proud is harder than seeing a total stranger in the same condition - a stranger who tried or would have tried to kill you at that.

Personally, I don't see why anyone would WANT to join the military. Mercs, on the other hand, are a different thing altogether. That said though, I think the military should hire gays before they hire religious or political extremists or high school dropouts and all the other kinds of troublemakers.

Did everyone miss my smiley ?

Quote from: "SSY"Did everyone miss my smiley ?

I saw it... s'why I laughed and didn't respond.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"

Quote from: "BadPoison"For nations in which the majority is not prejudice against gays, I absolutely see no harm.

But let me ask a question - Would it be fair to a homosexual to surround them in a batallion of primarily red-neck homophobes, and send him to a hot-spot? Do you not think that the rednecks would be less likely to go out of their way to cover someone that they hate?
If the answer is 'no' - then should there be special treatment for homosexuals in the military? Maybe a special gay batallion? But wouldn't that too result in "seperate but equal" style discrimination?

By that reasoning, atheists, pagans, satanist, pro-choice and a number of other groups rednecks hate shouldn't be allowed to join the military either. I doubt the redneck men were too happy when women were allowed to join; I think most of them are over that now. They can get over being around gay people too; it would be good for them.

You do realize that women still aren't allowed to take military jobs that would put them in front line combat? (In the United States)

Well - they are allowed to be combat aviators.

Edit: Don't missunderstand me - I'm all for equality. And I absolutely believe that being willing to fight for your country should be the sole requirement of eligibility in our armed forces.

Quote from: "BadPoison"Edit: Don't missunderstand me - I'm all for equality. And I absolutely believe that being willing to fight for your country should be the sole requirement of eligibility in our armed forces.

That and you know, being physically and mentally prepared and able to fight.

Ok i don't really understand all the animosity that people level at homosexuals. I mean I have been told by gay men that i am handsome and i take it as the compliment it is intended to be. (They would know after all) Lets face it there is no problem in Gays being in the military, if i am standing in the shower next to a gay guy i don't really care so long as he does not try to jump me and observes to some extent the above the waist rule. If he/she can hold a gun and kill what ever is on the opposing side of said fire arm I don't really care who they bed with at night.

Yes, all individuals who are healthy enough and willing to serve should be able to. The problem that I believe the U.S. military still has with this situation has more to do with the nation as a whole still not accepting gays and lesbians. And they don't want to be part of a "social experiment" so to speak. The military is concerned with getting a very serious job done, and they worry about anything that would throw focus off of a mission, or put the lives of people at risk because of something that distracts them from missions. They probably fear the specter of huge backlashes, and the military members who are homophobic who would retaliate against their gay comrades in arms.

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but I think that is still a big part of the issue. I believe that if U.S. society as a whole was truly ok with this, then the military would be too. It's really pathetic to think we are still in this position though.

i see no harm in such thing it's a personal freedom to be gay or not  

Quote from: "BadPoison"You do realize that women still aren't allowed to take military jobs that would put them in front line combat? (In the United States)

Well - they are allowed to be combat aviators.

Edit: Don't missunderstand me - I'm all for equality. And I absolutely believe that being willing to fight for your country should be the sole requirement of eligibility in our armed forces.

Despite the official stance that women are not to be put into combat situations, war has changed. For the foreseeable future, there is no front line. It is a whole new ballgame now, and there is no safe position for deployed troops.

I think our military is more similar to our government than to our general population. They are too big and lack the ability to adapt to change in a timely manner. The fact is that women are on the "front line" and gays are proving themselves able to serve without detriment to the military. Failure to accept reality is not a good sign, IMO.

Quote from: "BadPoison"You do realize that women still aren't allowed to take military jobs that would put them in front line combat? (In the United States)

Well - they are allowed to be combat aviators.

Edit: Don't missunderstand me - I'm all for equality. And I absolutely believe that being willing to fight for your country should be the sole requirement of eligibility in our armed forces.

Despite the official stance that women are not to be put into combat situations, war has changed. For the foreseeable future, there is no front line. It is a whole new ballgame now, and there is no safe position for deployed troops.

I think our military is more similar to our government than to our general population. They are too big and lack the ability to adapt to change in a timely manner. The fact is that women are on the "front line" and gays are proving themselves able to serve without detriment to the military. Failure to accept reality is not a good sign, IMO. It signals a lack of real leadership, in that they follow public opinion instead of following good sense.

Quote from: "BadPoison"You do realize that women still aren't allowed to take military jobs that would put them in front line combat? (In the United States)

Well - they are allowed to be combat aviators.

Edit: Don't missunderstand me - I'm all for equality. And I absolutely believe that being willing to fight for your country should be the sole requirement of eligibility in our armed forces.

They are not, technically allowed to be on the front lines, in positions deemed "combat" positions.  However, they are on the front lines as medics and communications positions.  It has nothing to do with their physical or mental abilities for the job, it is actually do to the men in those positions.  The military believes that male soldiers would make poor combat decisions if a female soldier were killed or injured during a fire fight. (I get shot, he may be more likely to run out to save me than a male soldier when it's unsafe to do so).

As far as the gay soldier is concerned, there are openly gay people in the service now.  I have faith that soldiers in the field and experiencing loss of friends in fights would be willing to accept their gay brother's in arms.  You'll never see a more mis-fit bunch of friends as you will in the service, people that woul never be friends in the "real world".

only if they don`t insist on a pink uniform with lots of tassles

Quote from: "Sophus"Should homosexuals be allowed to serve in the armed forces while being open about their sexuality? My vote is yes.

My vote was yes (absolutely yes) BUT it is an issue which needs to be dealt with properly.

I don't know about the US but UK armed forces tend to be barracked in male or female quarters and I can see that someone might be uncomfortable if someone else was eyeing them up sexually (which presumably is why the sexes are split up in the first place) so from that POV gays represent a problem, an issue to be dealt with.

One solution would be to have separate straight male & gay male barracks (and the same for women) but that gets over-complicated and another is single rooms for everyone (doable but expensive) so I would personally go for the idea mooted by SF authors Joe Haldeman & Robert Heinlein where barracks become unisex and sexual/social interplay becomes part of the standard landscape.

Kyu

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "SSY"I don't see a problem with them serving, as long as their pansy arms can shoot a gun and they don't feignt at the sight of a disembowled enemy corpse like the pathetic wussy fags they are.

 Not all gays act like the stereotype you are depicting.

Where does that stereotype come from anyways? I've known several gay men who are anything but "pansies" or even feminine. I think the ones (such as Ross Mathews) are pretentious just to show pride in their sexuality. Which there's nothing wrong with that. But I think that homosexuals in general have been given an unfair stereotype.

Gay people are as diverse as any other human in personality makeup. I know a few completely flaming homo's who'd give big gay Al a run for his money. I also know a guy who looks and acts as straight as an arrow but has been in a relationship with another guy for the past 5 years. From my experience gay people are incredibly hard to offend

The stereotype is only there because it is so flamboyant and easily recognisable. Gay people don't mind it either (well the ones i know don't).

It seemed to work just fine for the Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece)...

In Norway, they aren't even allowed to ask such questions concerning religion or sexuality because it's considered irrelevant. It's illegal to ask for that information. Of course, if you apply for a job as a priest in the Protestant church, you have to be a member of the state church (which should be abolished, but that's an entirely different matter). Norwegian law prohibits discrimination of any kind. I'm not saying that there is no discrimination in Norway, but I think there's less of it here than for example in the USA. People in Norway generally seem to be okay with people with another sexuality, so gays in the Norwegian military would probably not have many difficulties. Yes, there are of course some superstitious, homophobic maniacs, but the majority of the population don't really care much. Gays in the military has never really been a topic here.

Maybe because it hasn't been a problem? The reasons for this could be the fact that our armed forces are very few and the number is slowly decreasing. Therefore, gays don't appear very often. Also, even if Norway has compulsory military service for all men, and optional for women, most recieve call-up papers but only a few pass the physical/medical tests. In addition, you can apply for civil service instead of military, and if you plan to take higher education right away after upper secondary, the military doesn't really seem to be interested in you. If you're pacifist, you have the right to deny performing military service whatsoever and they can't ask what you would do if someone tried to kill your family, because, of course, everyone would defend their family, but the answer to this question can't be used against you to make you do military service.

However, I can imagine it must be worse for the homosexual soldier in a group of heterosexual, homophobic soldiers than it is for all the straight guys there. These homophobic people often seem to be prejudiced about homosexuals. I once saw a heterosexual man on TV who said that he wouldn't feel comfortable showering with men he knew was gay because he thought the gay guys might enjoy it. Don't they know that homosexuals are drawn to other homosexuals rather than to straight people?

But altogether, I don't see why people want to join the army.

What makes you think gay men only find other gay men attractive?

I have gay friends who do not take this into account. Obviously they won't form a relationship, but it has no bearing on lust.

As another example, Lindsey Lohan may be a lesbian, but I still would not pass up the opportunity to shower with her.

Quote from: "SSY"What makes you think gay men only find other gay men attractive?

I have gay friends who do not take this into account. Obviously they won't form a relationship, but it has no bearing on lust.

As another example, Lindsey Lohan may be a lesbian, but I still would not pass up the opportunity to shower with her.

I have to agree.  I'm bisexual and I find women and men attractive regardless of their sexuality.  I can't fathom approaching a person of an incompatible sexuality to date, though.  

Women and men are in the military, I don't see what the difference is.  I think the homophobes believe the homosexual people will rape them or something.  Homophobes and fundies equate being a homosexual with being a rapist and pedophile all the time.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I have to agree.  I'm bisexual and I find women and men attractive regardless of their sexuality.  I can't fathom approaching a person of an incompatible sexuality to date, though.

I'm fine with bisexual women ... does that count   ?

Kyu

Quote from: "Kylyssa"Women and men are in the military, I don't see what the difference is.  I think the homophobes believe the homosexual people will rape them or something.  Homophobes and fundies equate being a homosexual with being a rapist and pedophile all the time.

Homophobes are idiots. Homophobes with guns are scary idiots.

Reminds me of this:

[youtube:gi0mtplb]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk[/youtube:gi0mtplb]

[spoiler:gi0mtplb]

Quote from: "Lewis Black""Homosexuality is a threat to the family. Are you kidding me? How? No one ever explains it. How? It's not like there's a Jehovah's Witnesses of gaydom. 'Hi, we're here, we're queer, we're here, we're queer. I brought swatches! I brought swatches!'

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are a group of gay banditos who get into a van every day and wander from village to dell. And as night begins to fall, they go back into a suburban neighborhood to that cul-de-sac where only one house stands. And in the window this young American family is setting down to their first meal and these queers don their black cloaks and hoods and matching pumps--very tasteful--and they charcoal up their faces and sneak up to that house...and open the door...and START FUCKING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS!

AND ANOTHER AMERICAN FAMILY IS DESTROYED!"

[/spoiler:gi0mtplb]

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I have to agree.  I'm bisexual and I find women and men attractive regardless of their sexuality.  I can't fathom approaching a person of an incompatible sexuality to date, though.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fgfx%2FprogramGuide%2Fprogram%2Fme%2520too%2520resized.jpg&hash=3d15ff01fbc3349f34ad854aee1388dbe517bb54)

Sup Holmes!?!?! Long time no see, right?

Let me say my bit. Let's break it down.

It's like any other job. Keep your sexual feelings to yourself. Yeah yeah, all you ladies want me and stuff, but I have to let you know if we were working together you couldn't just jump all over me, as much as you and I both like it.

Gays are just people. They have the same issues, hopes, dreams, problems, etc. as we do. They eat, sleep, shat, etc. like we do. Why shouldn't they be allowed to served this great country? Honestly, we need more soldiers. This country has been good to me, I want it to last longer than I do. If someone else wants to be willing to shed their blood for her, more power to them.

What and where they want to stick their you-know-what in you-know-who shouldn't matter. If it's with 1.) Consenting adults. 2.) In their own privacy. More fucking power to them.

I think we should have one simple standard in the military. No exceptions for gays, women, etc. If you can't cut it, you don't stay. You feel me? If you can't do X amount of pushups, Y amount of situps, run 2 miles in Z amount of time, you have no place carrying a rifle to protect this country.

Just my two cents.

Quote from: "Sophus"Should homosexuals be allowed to serve in the armed forces while being open about their sexuality? My vote is yes.

I voted "yes" as well.  Newsflash: Gays have been quietly serving all services, branches and jobs in the military, combat and support, for several hundred years.

Having been in infantry combat, when the shit hits the fan, the last thing on your mind are the details of somebody's sex life ... all you care about is that each and everyone do their job and not let their squad members down.

The US military's discrimination against gays has been driven by Christian homophobia within its ranks ... it's time to stop this moronic nonsense.

.

no one should be in the military, bunch of conceited barbarians.

Quote from: "VietnamVet-BRIGHT"

Quote from: "Sophus"Should homosexuals be allowed to serve in the armed forces while being open about their sexuality? My vote is yes.

I voted "yes" as well.  Newsflash: Gays have been quietly serving all services, branches and jobs in the military, combat and support, for several hundred years.

Having been in infantry combat, when the shit hits the fan, the last thing on your mind are the details of somebody's sex life ... all you care about is that each and everyone do their job and not let their squad members down.

The US military's discrimination against gays has been driven by Christian homophobia within its ranks ... it's time to stop this moronic nonsense.

.

Totally Agree...that its even a debate is silly

I love ur signature BTW, i think i should start doing that to my $$

Quote from: "AnnaM"no one should be in the military, bunch of conceited barbarians.

Oh dear ... another one who has lost grip on reality!

Kyu

Somone voted no, was this AnnaM? Or someone with a specefic ill against gays in the military?

This video explains everything.
[youtube:22qi6uo7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ[/youtube:22qi6uo7]

Quote from: "keith2004"I love ur signature BTW, i think i should start doing that to my $$

If you don't have a stamp, simply do the following with a medium point permanent marker ... it changes the motto to "in NO god we trust" ...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi56.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg183%2FVietnamvet-BRIGHT%2F8-NOgod-1.jpg&hash=d0c7e1b54010eadfac5ff6981c452d14f9511320)

.

Rather than just crossing out "God", I replace it with another word like "science", "reason", "medicine", "freedom" or "democracy" for example. I think that's more positive.

Do people accept that money if you try to spend it?

IIRC it is classed ( or used to be ) as treason to stick a stamp on an envelope upside down, queens head and all. Are amercians not quite as insane?

Oh, here it is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7081038.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7081038.stm)

It is perhaps Interesting to know that 2/3 of all laws and regulations of the world are issued here in Germany. There are a lot of regulations and laws that doesn't make much sense. According to the German road regulations (StVO) you are for example allowed to drive around in a car completely naked   ;) .

Don't Ask Don't Tell is nearing repeal! And you can sign your name here to show support...  

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/repealdadt?source=feature

Quote from: "Sophus"Don't Ask Don't Tell is nearing repeal! And you can sign your name here to show support...  

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/repealdadt?source=feature

I've read the wiki on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" but I'm a bit mystified. If DADT is repealed what will that mean to homosexuals in military service?

It means that gays can serve in the military without needing to lie about or cover up the fact that they're gay. If someone is gay and wants to serve, with DADT gone, they will be allowed to do so openly.

Quote from: "Sophus"It means that gays can serve in the military without needing to lie about or cover up the fact that they're gay. If someone is gay and wants to serve, with DADT gone, they will be allowed to do so openly.

I suspected that was what was meant but as the discussion has progressed so far there was a presumption that the people reading were aware of the root issues. Good news indeed. I hope it gets repealed.

To this day, I stand at marvel at the fact that people who put themselves, by contract, into the way of ABC weapons, bullets, explosives, suicide bombings, tank treads and flamethrowers are somehow (assumed to be) afraid of catching THE GAY. I... I just... *does not compute*...

I voted yes.  I don't see what baring sexuality has on one's ability to serve their country.  I'd kind of like to know why the one person who voted no feels that way, though.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'd kind of like to know why the one person who voted no feels that way, though.

Beee... Cause that one person was a trollish ultra-ortodox fundie?

"Oh well it's okay if your gay...we're not telling you what to do BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE PLEASE DON'T ACT GAY!!!" I've always been a bit pissed at the whole damn thing....like you can seriously be less of a soldier if you're gay?  WTF

What's really stupid is when they let go of immensely valuable translators because of their sexuality. These guys could speak Arabic and they let them go when there was a shortage of Arabic speakers. How stupid are we as a country? This repeal is long overdue.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml (Yes, I know this is from 2002)

Quote from: "Sophus"What's really stupid is when they let go of immensely valuable translators because of their sexuality. These guys could speak Arabic and they let them go when there was a shortage of Arabic speakers. How stupid are we as a country? This repeal is long overdue.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml (Yes, I know this is from 2002)

Emotion often trumps logic and hate is a powerful emotion.

Quote from: "Seth MacFarlene"“If you’re sitting at home in your undershirt, watching TV, worried about terrorism, and at the same time objecting to the person who’s putting their life on the line so that your family will be protected, then you’re the worst kind of fucking asshole there is.”

  Kind of says it all.

Quote from: "Albino_Raptor"To this day, I stand at marvel at the fact that people who put themselves, by contract, into the way of ABC weapons, bullets, explosives, suicide bombings, tank treads and flamethrowers are somehow (assumed to be) afraid of catching THE GAY. I... I just... *does not compute*...

Ignorance breeds this kind of fear, dude.

These folks also think that when they die they will go to a place high up in the sky or in a pit down below. This same set of values makes you kind of have to discriminate against people who have done nothing to you or anyone else. The logic doesn't compute on any level.

I think this also is funny/sad because it's true:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fterminallance.com%2Fcomics%2F2010-04-30-Strip_34_Its_Already_Gay_web.jpg&hash=5056a750d5e98167ad12abb5641218bb220af0a2)

I voted "yes", of course.

I'd also like to point out that there are currently many homosexuals already serving in the US armed forces. They're already there in the showers, possibly checking you out. They're already putting their lives at risk alongside you. They're already fighting and dying on the front lines. The only difference that will be made by the abolition of "don't ask, don't tell" will be that these men will now be able to discuss these facts about themselves without fear of being expelled from the military.