Oh noooooo, pole smokers STILL not allowed in the military

[Jonny Cash]

I think there is some misinterpretation of what the military entails here. 1st off not everybody is going to get shot at. Being in the Coast Guard chasing drug boats gives you a better chance of getting shot at than being in the NAVY or Air Force. 2nd you pretty much need to be infantry or special forces to get shot at. So how about since you all want them shot at we put all the gays on the front lines and make our military gay free that way. See I'm compromising

so what are you combat wounded or something, diabled? Because you sure do spend alot of time talking shit on the internet. I dont care if you had a purple heart, youre still a bitch in my eyes. I mean, to carry on like you do.. Talking about black dicks and fags all day while everyone else is at work. Theres something wrong there. How does this crap directly affect you, thats what id like to know.

[5Toes]

Also to mention amputees like myself are not allowed to serve. Im pretty ballsy compared to other guys.

[balooshinakus]

No fucking shit Einstein! Just wait till they allow openly flaming Gays to serve! Hence what I said earlier.

Do you really think a ton of flamers are going to start joining the general infantry? I have never met a flamer who had any interest in violence what-so-ever. Once again, does it even matter? I don't think so. If they want to go out and fight or serve this country they should be allowed to.

[Vedubin01]

did you ever think a girl would try to join the Boy Scouts or get Congress to allow a female to attend the Citadel? It happened, and now they have had to change policy to allow any if not all women to join or attend.

There will be the "NUTS" that will try if given the opportunity just to cause a problem or make a name of themselves.

You give an inch and people will take a mile.... every time!

[balooshinakus]

did you ever think a girl would try to join the Boy Scouts or get Congress to allow a female to attend the Citadel? It happened, and now they have had to change policy to allow any if not all women to join or attend.

There will be the "NUTS" that will try if given the opportunity just to cause a problem or make a name of themselves.

You give an inch and people will take a mile.... every time!

So could you remind me why "flamers" are unqualified to serve?

[Vedubin01]

So could you remind me why "flamers" are unqualified to serve?

They are qualified as long as they pass the entrance process.

[balooshinakus]

So why does sexual orientation matter?

[randomquickness]

wow, this thread got heated...

The current system works, all the gays serving accept the policy and do their jobs. If being openly gay was a top priority, they wouldn't have joined. On my last tour in Iraq we had 2 gay soldiers that joined the Army getting jobs which they thought would not put them in harms way. The minute they were ordered to go on a mission outside the fob they went to the higher ups screaming "We're gay and we can prove it" to get discharged. I guess one positive to rescinding the policy would have been those guys wouldn't have had an "easy out" of their duty. Ultimately I just think it will cause more trouble than it's worth right now.

[Vedubin01]

So why does sexual orientation matter?

You dont put Women in the Battle Field!

[balooshinakus]

wow, this thread got heated...

The current system works, all the gays serving accept the policy and do their jobs. If being openly gay was a top priority, they wouldn't have joined. On my last tour in Iraq we had 2 gay soldiers that joined the Army getting jobs which they thought would not put them in harms way. The minute they were ordered to go on a mission outside the fob they went to the higher ups screaming "We're gay and we can prove it" to get discharged. I guess one positive to rescinding the policy would have been those guys wouldn't have had an "easy out" of their duty. Ultimately I just think it will cause more trouble than it's worth right now.

I'm sure that there are straight men who would freak out too. In fact I for sure would be freaked out if I signed up for a non-combat position and was about to be entered into combat. Straight guys don't have an easy out, but the current policy gives gay people an easy way out. You haven't proven that gays are unfit for combat, and if anything you have shown that there might be value to removing this policy so that nobody has a way of backing out of their service. Don't try to act like homosexuals are the only people scared of getting shot at, I would be shitting myself in their position.

There are plenty of systems that "worked" but were wrong, like slavery. Just because it works doesn't mean its acceptable.

You dont put Women in the Battle Field!

Solid argument....

[randomquickness]

I'm sure that there are straight men who would freak out too. In fact I for sure would be freaked out if I signed up for a non-combat position and was about to be entered into combat. Straight guys don't have an easy out, but the current policy gives gay people an easy way out. You haven't proven that gays are unfit for combat, and if anything you have shown that there might be value to removing this policy so that nobody has a way of backing out of their service. Don't try to act like homosexuals are the only people scared of getting shot at, I would be shitting myself in their position.

There are plenty of systems that "worked" but were wrong, like slavery. Just because it works doesn't mean its acceptable.

I never said gays aren't fit for combat. Plenty are and do their jobs well. And there is no such thing as a job in the Army that is free from harms way. They drill it into your head from day 1 that no matter what your "job" is, you're infantry first-male, female, whatever. I don't think it's right for them to have an easy out just for getting scared. I realize these 2 guys didn't represent the majority of gays so I'm not going to act like they do. You admitted you'd be scared if you had to go on a dangerous mission and you aren't running to the recruiter signing up. If you knew you could collect a steady pay check for a while and then quit if you got scared you might consider it.

[balooshinakus]

Sounds to me like you think gays should be allowed to serve openly, because it would prevent them from doing what you described to get out of combat that straight males would be forced into. Everyone should be equal.

[randomquickness]

I'm not 100% either way. I believe there are pros and cons either way. If you check out the male on male rape statistics in the military, it's getting out of control. I wonder if being openly gay would have any effect on that...

[mar1t1me]

I spend a lot of time on what basically amount to floating cities. Just like any population, there are lots of different kinds of people. The ones who succeed are able to put their identity as a seaman first while on the boat. Just as we have people of many religions, (including Islam), who do not wear their affiliations "on their sleeves" we have many whose sexual preferences are same sex, but you'd never know it on the boat. These are mostly professionals we are talking about. They aren't any more likely to have a meltdown under stress than anyone else.

In the end, I feel it is incredibly short-sighted to make rules that try to prevent every conceivable abuse. Rather, make sensible rules that deal with abuse in a way that disincentivizes unwanted behavior.

BTW, my father was a sailor in WWII. You should hear about blacks were treated. Really shameful.

[MoparJ]

BTW, my father was a sailor in WWII. You should hear about blacks were treated. Really shameful.

Unfortunately, this is very true. Both my grandfathers were on destroyers during WWII; one was off the coast of Saipan during the battle for the island. After it was over, some of the crew was sent over in shifts for body detail and burials.....guess who got stuck with that job?