gays in the military

[brainhulk]

i've seen some gay guys beat the crap out of straight guys, so they are probably good fighters

 

[Newbian]

Why are you posting this?

Did you get beat up again?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Why should we give those faggots the same rights as everyone else? If those faggots want the same rights as human beings they can change their sexual orientation.

/American Republican

 

[techs]

Why should we give those faggots the same rights as everyone else? If those faggots want the same rights as human beings they can change their sexual orientation.

/American Republican

Funny, I thought the Constitution gave everyone the same rights.

/American Patriot

 

[sdifox]

I don't see why this hasn't been challenged successfully. The fucking constitution of the country says you cannot discriminate based on whatever. 14th amendment I believe.

 

[dfuze]

I don't see why this hasn't been challenged successfully. The fucking constitution of the country says you cannot discriminate based on whatever. 14th amendment I believe.

Sadly, because people only like to apply it when it works out in their favor.

 

[weflyhigh]

If you think openly gay people should be allowed in the military, then you must also believe showers and locker rooms in gyms should be coed.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

If you think openly gay people should be allowed in the military, then you must also believe showers and locker rooms in gyms should be coed.

 

[techs]

If you think openly gay people should be allowed in the military, then you must also believe showers and locker rooms in gyms should be coed.

Why are Republicans so obsessed with what goes on in someones bedroom?

 

[shocksyde]

Why should we give those faggots the same rights as everyone else? If those faggots want the same rights as human beings they can change their sexual orientation.

/American Republican

I know you're being sarcastic here, but you sure do use the words "i love you" and "lovely human" alot, you homophobic fuck.

 

[sao123]

Why are Republicans so obsessed with what goes on in someones bedroom?

Because if sexual preference actually became a protected minority, then churches would be forced to hire them into leadership positions, despite it being against the very foundations of the church.
Its a logical business decision.

 

[clamum]

I think the current policy is fucking insane.

 

[Riceninja]

why should we give those faggots the same rights as everyone else? If those faggots want the same rights as human beings they can change their sexual orientation.

/american republican

AMERICA FUCK YEAHHHHh1

 

[Number1]

If you think openly gay people should be allowed in the military, then you must also believe showers and locker rooms in gyms should be coed.

Where do the gays go now to take showers?

 

[moshquerade]

Why should we give those faggots the same rights as everyone else? If those faggots want the same rights as human beings they can change their sexual orientation.

/American Republican

I think your interpretation is off a bit. I am a registered Republican, and I totally disagree with your statement. The majority don't fit your stereotype.

As far as the original post, I think anyone should be allowed in the military if they meet the qualifications with sexual orientation not being one of those qualifications. To me, it's like they are saying homosexuals can't control themselves sexually, but heterosexuals can?
Why else would there be this stigma about homosexuals in the military?

 

[zsdersw]

Some things to consider:

1.) Gay men who volunteer to be in the armed forces are not very likely to be your stereotypical "flamer". Chances are that you'd have to be told they're gay and wouldn't guess it on your own.

2.) Showers and other close-quarters stuff doesn't have to change. Sexual harassment is already not permitted, so what's the real problem? Last time I checked, the military doesn't really care about any insecurities you have. They'll break you down and then build you up again.. their way.

 

[dpodblood]

As far as the original post, I think anyone should be allowed in the military if they meet the qualifications with sexual orientation not being one of those qualifications. To me, it's like they are saying homosexuals can't control themselves sexually, but heterosexuals can?
Why else would there be this stigma about homosexuals in the military?

:thumbsup:

What does sexual orientation have to do with your ability to perform a duty? Absolutely nothing, thats what...

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

If you think openly gay people should be allowed in the military, then you must also believe showers and locker rooms in gyms should be coed.

You're an idiot if you seriously believe that. I'm going to take a wild guess you are making the argument that a gay person likes the same sex, so if they are in the same sex locker room it would equate to a straigh person being in the opposite sex locker room. If that's what you're putting forth, then you are being quite ignorant. Gay people are not sexual deviants that can't control themselves. Gays have been in the locker rooms forever, it's just it wouldn't be known they were gay. What's the difference of them openly being gay in the locker room and nobody knowing they are gay in the locker room?

Because if sexual preference actually became a protected minority, then churches would be forced to hire them into leadership positions, despite it being against the very foundations of the church.
Its a logical business decision.

Repealing DADT has nothing to do with churches. Giving gay rights does not mean churches have to do anything, since they are private institutions.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not as my meter is broken.

I think your interpretation is off a bit. I am a registered Republican, and I totally disagree with your statement. The majority don't fit your stereotype.

As far as the original post, I think anyone should be allowed in the military if they meet the qualifications with sexual orientation not being one of those qualifications. To me, it's like they are saying homosexuals can't control themselves sexually, but heterosexuals can?
Why else would there be this stigma about homosexuals in the military?

I think that if DADT had gone up for a vote without any other riders (i.e. DREAM Act), it would have passed because I think enough republicans would support it.

The bolded is a great statement. Take a look at rapes in the military. They happen. Gays are ALREADY IN THE MILITARY. Ending DADT will change nothing outside of let openly gay people serve.

The only possible argument that has any merit to it, would be that it would create issues within the unit. A lot of soldiers would disagree with that.

 

[Vonkhan]

GI in a trench: "I should be worrying about the dude in front of me ... not the one behind me"



That being said, being gay has nothing to do with your ability to fight. A pink M-16 is just lethal as a regular one!

 

[soulcougher73]

I think anyone who wants to protect there country should be allowed to serve. It's an honorable thing (as long as you like your country that is)

Even though i was in the military for 4 years along time ago. Today i probably would not defend the U.S. if attacked. We could probably use a good overthrow today

 

[DangerAardvark]

I think your interpretation is off a bit. I am a registered Republican, and I totally disagree with your statement. The majority don't fit your stereotype.

As far as the original post, I think anyone should be allowed in the military if they meet the qualifications with sexual orientation not being one of those qualifications. To me, it's like they are saying homosexuals can't control themselves sexually, but heterosexuals can?
Why else would there be this stigma about homosexuals in the military?

Even worse, the proponents of DADT apparently think so little of our military personnel that they think they can't handle serving with a gay person. The bottom line is that if you're pro-military, then you're for keeping more qualified individuals in its ranks rather than less.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Because if sexual preference actually became a protected minority, then churches would be forced to hire them into leadership positions, despite it being against the very foundations of the church.
Its a logical business decision.

They already have gays in the clergy. Molesting little boys...

Edit-I'm not saying that gays are child molesters. Just that priests are.

 

[mmntech]

I think your interpretation is off a bit. I am a registered Republican, and I totally disagree with your statement. The majority don't fit your stereotype.

As far as the original post, I think anyone should be allowed in the military if they meet the qualifications with sexual orientation not being one of those qualifications. To me, it's like they are saying homosexuals can't control themselves sexually, but heterosexuals can?
Why else would there be this stigma about homosexuals in the military?

I think they're afraid of sex scandles. One of the reasons they didn't allow women on ships until recently. They still don't slow them on subs IIRC. Machismo is a big thing in military circles.

 

[zebano]

I've absolutely no problem with it as long as sexual molestation is not allowed, which coincidentally already isn't.

/American Libertarian.

 

[Number1]

Homosexuality has been allowed in the Canadian military for a decade or more. I am not aware it created any issues or degraded our operational effectiveness. As a mater of fact, our soldiers have performed admirably under fire in Afghanistan. The US military has even put American troops under Canadian command. Would it have mattered if the General was gay?

Edit: There is no sexual activity permitted whatsoever in a theater of war for Canadian soldiers. As a mater of fact, our highest ranking General in Afghanistan was sent home after it was found out he was screwing one of his subordinate (female).