should homosexuals be allowed in the military?

673 posts

Flag Post

apparently the military feels that homosexuals interfere with unit cohesion and thus do not want them to be in their ranks. i personally dont care if they can do their job i dont see why it matters. its not like they will be on the battlefield saying “oh nos i cant shoot him hes cute”. or would they?

 
Flag Post

Why is this different from allowing female soldiers?

 
Flag Post

… You realize that was just a hasty generalization, right, dark? I know you were making it to prove a point, but the whole “effiminate gays” stereotype is far from universal. So now, next time someone tries it, you’ll know what to call it.

Originally posted by Carados:

Why is this different from allowing female soldiers?

I honestly think the case is stronger for homosexuals. Females don’t have the same upper-body strength as men, it’s just human physiology. But a homosexual in the army would be able to meet the same physical standards of all the other soldiers.

The “unit cohesion” argument is equally shameful, I think. Rather than highlighting the problems with gays in the military, it merely shows the flaws within our society, or at least military training, that it engenders fear and hatred to a degree that it would prevent teamwork.

 
Flag Post

As long as they don’t go around sucking people off I say we need them in the military. We won’t be able to trick low income white trash for much longer, say from West Virginia.

Sorry to put it so bluntly.

Also, I want to make it clear that DARKNINJA210 made this thread – not Vanguarde. It does have a Vanguarde-like title so I wanted to clear that up. Also, good thread FuzzyBacon, I expect lots of fun to come from this one!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Vanguarde:

As long as they don’t go around sucking people off I say we need them in the military. We won’t be able to trick low income white trash for much longer, say from West Virginia.

Sorry to put it so bluntly.

Also, I want to make it clear that FUZZYBACON made this thread – not Vanguarde. It does have a Vanguarde-like title so I wanted to clear that up. Also, good thread FuzzyBacon, I expect lots of fun to come from this one!

I totally did not make this. Look at the OP. It’s Darkninja210. Good topic, though.

 
Flag Post

Sorry, I am drunk so I made a mistake.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Carados:

Why is this different from allowing female soldiers?

Guess what, females cause a TON of problems within the millitary

Originally posted by Vanguarde:

As long as they don’t go around sucking people off I say we need them in the military. We won’t be able to trick low income white trash for much longer, say from West Virginia.

Sorry to put it so bluntly.

Also, I want to make it clear that FUZZYBACON made this thread – not Vanguarde. It does have a Vanguarde-like title so I wanted to clear that up. Also, good thread FuzzyBacon, I expect lots of fun to come from this one!

Sorry to put THIS so bluntly. You’re an idiot. Yes the military is a place where you can go if you have had no good education and have no direction in life. That is one portion of the military. However there is also another group which consists of very well educated people who want to protect our country and serve us. Don’t be so hateful vanguarde.

 
Flag Post

Guess what, females cause a TON of problems within the millitary

1954 called and it wants its post back.

The most out-spoken opponents in women in the military now apologize and agree there is no problem.

Unless you are being sexist.

 
Flag Post

So you deny the current US Army ad campaign is not directly targeted to rural and low income people?

Why don’t they show a recruiter at Harvard signing up people with the usual tricky lines to get you to sign?

And I am not hateful. I think we will need lots of troops for the coming war for water in this century. Gays and straights, Lesbians, transexuals, all those things.

 
Flag Post

Well what I did was not explain myself. The real problem is the interaction between females and males. It does however cause a lot of problems…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by pacaholic:

Well what I did was not explain myself. The real problem is the interaction between females and males. It does however cause a lot of problems…

It hasn’t been in the past few years.

 
Flag Post

Guess what, females cause a TON of problems within the millitary

No they don’t.

 
Flag Post

I have seen military adds targeting intelligent people. Military recruiters go to a lot of schools, and just because they don’t go to the Ivy league schools, that doesn’t mean that they arent going to some nice schools. How much of our population goes to Ivy league schools? Lets say it = x%. Should they then not spend x% on recruiting? I’m going to go out on a limb and say thats not very much. Why would they spend, for example, 50% of their budget on recruiting 1% of the population and the other 50% on the other 99% of the population.

 
Flag Post

Credit goes to phoenix00017 for linking me to this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220291&title=nathaniel-frank

It wasn’t embedding properly.

 
Flag Post

And if these brilliant people happen to be gay, we no longer want them? Yeah, that makes perfect sense…

 
Flag Post

My brother has been in the military for about 18 years. He is not from the “low income” population that gets “tricked” into joining. He went to the US naval academy. We have had this discussion before and besides the fact that i don’t believe he would lie, his complaints make sense. What do you think happens when a bunch of 18 year old sailors are put on a boat with 18 year old girls? Do you REALLY think that doesn’t cause any problems? These 18 year old kids, some of them who came from horrible backgrounds, are on a boat for months. Anyways, he says that females do cause a majority of the problems within the military, (problems dealing with the interaction of people, not problems such as disobey orders, rule breaking, accidents, etc.) But he explains its not the females directly, but instead the interaction between the two. He also told me that the worst situation is when a 22-24 year old female is a superior to a group of young teenage boys.

 
Flag Post

Sources. Cite them, you should…

Once you do that, I’ll respond, but until then, I have no way of judging the validity of your claims.

 
Flag Post

Then I suggest getting rid of the males. Why should the females be forced to leave?

Frankly, the U.S. needs more ‘Ships of the Valkyrie’

I find it distasteful when people assume the females should leave.

 
Flag Post

Anyways, he says that females do cause a majority of the problems within the military, (problems dealing with the interaction of people, not problems such as disobey orders, rule breaking, accidents, etc.)

Be specific, because I happen to be a veteran and I think this is nonsense.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FuzzyBacon:

Sources. Cite them, you should…

Once you do that, I’ll respond, but until then, I have no way of judging the validity of your claims.

Who and what are you talking about?

 
Flag Post

IF someone had to leave, it would be females. Anyone who disagrees with that IS sexist. That being said, I don’t think that they should leave, mostly because I don’t have anywhere CLOSE to the amount of knowledge to justify doing so. What I DO know is that letting females in DID have its downsides.

 
Flag Post

Saying something over and over doesn’t make it true.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Anyways, he says that females do cause a majority of the problems within the military, (problems dealing with the interaction of people, not problems such as disobey orders, rule breaking, accidents, etc.)

Be specific, because I happen to be a veteran and I think this is nonsense.

What was your branch, time in service, anything else that shows some light on your experience.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by pacaholic:

IF someone had to leave, it would be females. Anyone who disagrees with that IS sexist. That being said, I don’t think that they should leave, mostly because I don’t have anywhere CLOSE to the amount of knowledge to justify doing so. What I DO know is that letting females in DID have its downsides.

So the extreme generalization that all females need to go because some of them may or may not be causing problems (Sources, dude), isn’t sexist? I’ve been getting it backwards my entire life!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by pacaholic:

What was your branch, time in service, anything else that shows some light on your experience.

He’s given more evidence than you have. Quid pro quo.