Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly

We had one guy in our unit that was always causing a major disruption. Late one night a blanket was put over him by several soilders and he got the Hell beat out of him. It was so bad that he had to get medical help. Since he had been wrapped in a blanket. He was unable to identify the attackers. The next day he was transfered out of the unit and that was the last we ever saw of him. :cool:

Sorry to hear you were treated that way but maybe you shouldn't have been gay bashing and jew bashing so much.
 
Far too simplistic an analysis, Ravi. There are real concerns involved with this issue. They are not insurmountable, but they will not be addressed with "feel good", politically correct solutions. Simply legislating that it is ok to be gay in the military will not solve the problem.

You will have guys like Sunni describes (and professes to be) that will have to be addressed. Instead of losing one gay, you now risk losing the gay person and the x number of idiots that decided a blanket party was a good idea. You also now have to deal with the climate created by such an action (fear, mistrust, etc.) that can easily render a unit combat ineffective. So now you have an entire unit that that will have to be rebuilt and retrained. That could take months if not years. This is of course and extreme example but not beyond the bounds of reality of what could happen. How many units do you think the military (and this country) can afford to have disrupted or even rendered combat ineffective at one time?

If you look at the history of how desegragation was accomplished within the military, you will realize that it was a long painful process. In the end it was a good thing IMO but it took a long, long time to accomplish.

Great post. Desegregation in the military did take a long time but with the example of how beneficial that turned out to be, I think gays and those who support repealing don't ask, don't tell can expect a faster process.
 
So why did these guys have to resign?

Was it because that were not allowed to display their limp wrists or swish as they walk while in uniform :confused:

Sunni, how would you feel if at your job you were required to pretend to be a Christian or a Jew? Could you live with that?
 
The military provides a building on most bases for a mosque. So that soilders of the muslim faith can pray. As they do for all faiths.

Should we now also provide bath houses and gay bars for the homosexual soilders?

Lets not get side tracked here.

You defend the blanket party for a "troublemaker" and called it a good thing. Given the context of this thread, one could assume you were talking about a guy that happened to be gay and was assaulted because of it. If the "trouble maker were a Muslim and beaten by members of his unit for that reason, would you still smugly assert it was a good thing? I suspect not.

Your statement about bath houses and gay bars alludes to special accommodations made for specific groups. That may well be one of the things that has to occur to allow gays to serve openly. I should point out that the military does not provide bars (gay or otherwise). The clubs you see on post are operated by private organizations and only ALLOWED to operate as a service...much like AFEES.

The point is that no soldier should be subjected to fear of assault (your blanket party, if you will) because of race, religious belief and yes....sexual orientation. Whether any of the aforementioned categories should be allowed to serve openly or not is NOT my point.
 
Homos carry too many diseases. Especially AIDS.

If I knew a fellow soilder was a homo and he was seriously wounded in a firefight and bleeding profusely. I wouldn't touch him or try to bandage him. The most I would do is pull out a field dressing and toss it to him.
 
My sons' rolled eyes & mumbles of "10%ers" and "s***birds", aren't directed at the gays they serve with, Sunni...but then, it's all about shock value and attention with you. Forget facts and what really matters. Pffft.

WTF is your above post supposed to even mean? Again, this isn't about giving a group special rights above and beyond other peoples'. It's about losing good men and women over something trivial. And in a time when we need every single good man & woman who wants to serve well...this whole nitpicking BS is ridiculous.

It must really give you the shivers to think that you served with gay men and women and didn't know it. I'd bet good money you showered with 'em during boot too. Funny how you and everyone else made it through unscathed.

Phobias. They have therapy and meds for those, ya know.

Glad my boys (and most people) have a better attitude than you.

Suddenly, I need Pepto...
 
Last edited:
Homos carry too many diseases. Especially AIDS.

If I knew a fellow soilder was a homo and he was seriously wounded in a firefight and bleeding profusely. I wouldn't touch him or try to bandage him. The most I would do is pull out a field dressing and toss it to him.


Under your logic, that homo would be sure to shoot you because you are a Muslim, and all Muslims are terrorists.... hmmm...I guess that's fair.
 
Under your logic, that homo would be sure to shoot you because you are a Muslim, and all Muslims are terrorists.... hmmm...I guess that's fair.
I was serious in my post. Why should other soilders be subject to life threatening infections. Just so homos can further their agenda of destroying the military.
 
Sunni - seriously, you'd let a fellow warrior die rather than giving aid? My gawd, I'm thankful you're nowhere near my sons.

I seldom make a personal statement referring to people's worthiness to even debate online, but one word springs to mind: waste.
 
Last edited:
I was serious in my post. Why should other soilders be subject to life threatening infections. Just so homos can further their agenda of destroying the military.

First, soldiers are subject to life threatening infections anyway. Ever see what a contagious disease like the flu (never mind the whole list of other stuff) does to a unit? Second, I don't think "homos" could single handedly destroy the military. Congress on the other hand...they worry me.

Again, by your logic, why should soldiers be subject to a possible bombing simply because some Muslim wants to serve?

Do you even see how ridiculous your argument is? So far, you haven't come up with any valid reason why gays should not serve and believe me, I can think of a few.
 
The military provides a building on most bases for a mosque. So that soilders of the muslim faith can pray. As they do for all faiths.

Should we now also provide bath houses and gay bars on base for the homosexual soilders? :eek:

Why do people like you and The Basshole and Retarded GY Sarge keep equating homosexuality with rampant uncontrollable flaunting of sexual preference and sexual harassment of straights? Have you ever actually met a gay person? Most of the time you can't even tell they are gay because just like the rest of us, they have jobs to do and other interests besides sex.
I promise you that if you and the Ass were in the military, gays would be even less interested in you than women are. I doubt Tardo Sarge ever merited an overture from a gay man either.
I once worked in a place where I was the only woman and it was about 50% gay men. One thing that was obvious was that the gay men were not in the least interested in straight men other than as friends. Some of them told me that a straight man who was interested in exploring his gay side was to be avoided because they often got all hung up on their first male sex partner and brought too much baggage into the relationship. Later some lesbians came to work there. There was never any tension the whole time I worked there over straight versus gay. Except for one perv who had to be fired. But his problem was something other than his sexuality.
Gays are just like straights in that they don't find everyone of the sex which attracts them to actually be attractive. You and The Ass and Tardo Sarge need to get over yourselves. Gays just aren't that into you.
 
Last edited:
Homos carry too many diseases. Especially AIDS.

If I knew a fellow soilder was a homo and he was seriously wounded in a firefight and bleeding profusely. I wouldn't touch him or try to bandage him. The most I would do is pull out a field dressing and toss it to him.

How humane of you.
 
Why do people like you and The Basshole and Retarded GY Sarge keep equating homosexuality with rampant uncontrollable flaunting of sexual preference and sexual harassment of straights? Have you ever actually met a gay person? Most of the time you can't even tell they are gay because just like the rest of us, they have jobs to do and other interests besides sex.
I promise you that if you and the Ass were in the military, gays would be even less interested in you than women are. I doubt Tardo Sarge ever merited an overture from a gay man either.
I once worked in a place where I was the only woman and it was about 50% gay men. One thing that was obvious was that the gay men were not in the least interested in straight men other than as friends. Some of them told me that a straight man who was interested in exploring his gay side was to be avoided because they often got all hung up on their first male sex partner and brought too much baggage into the relationship. Later some lesbians came to work there. There was never any tension the whole time I worked there over straight versus gay. Except for one perv who had to be fired. But his problem was something other than his sexuality.
Gays are just like straights in that they don't find everyone of the sex which attracts them to actually be attractive. You and The Ass and Tardo Sarge need to get over yourselves. Gays just aren't that into you.

To be fair, when one sees some of the actions and attire some gays display (gay pride parades are scarey things, methinks) it sure can make one find "gays" repulsive.

Of course, it's always the extremes that make the centrists shudder, isn't it!
 
Hey, why should I risk contracting a disease just because some guy likes to get his fudge packed!!!

Put on some gloves like the paramedics do. Contact with another person's blood is to be avoided, regardless of who or what they are.
But if it were me and there were no gloves, I'd still take the chance that I had no cuts on my hands through which a virus could enter and plan to take a course of anti retrovirals should my fellow soldier test positive. I don't think I could sit by and watch a fellow soldier die when a tourniquet and a little risk on my part could save their life.
 

Forum List

Back
Top