Gays in the Military

[Asmodean]

...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.

[SSY]

Did everyone miss my smiley ?

[curiosityandthecat]

Did everyone miss my smiley ?

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

[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.

[SSY]

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.

[Dragon_Of_Heavon]

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.

[McQ]

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.

[wazzz]

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

[Wraitchel]

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.

[Wraitchel]

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.

[VanReal]

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".

[spartacus]

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

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

[karadan]

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).

[curiosityandthecat]

It seemed to work just fine for the Greeks...