homosexual army

[Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11256359

should openly gay soldiers be allowed to serve????

this kind of thing only happens in the usa lol

[Georgy Zhukov]

Yes.

[Valus]

Of course!
Is there any logical reason for not letting "them" serve?

[Mr. Scott]

Of course!
Is there any logical reason for not letting "them" serve?

Yes, seeing as how most of the military is male, it would be awkward. I mean, if you talk to a 'flamer', is there no awkwardness at all within you? even a little?

I'm fine with the current policy. It allows gays to serve, so long as they are not open about it or tell anyone about it. It may not be fair, but the military needs to do what it has to to be as effective as possible.

[humvee2800]

People used to have awkwardness serving alongside blacks, awkwardness does not mean something is suddenly wrong. If a open gay joins a unit , others will not feel perpetually awkward, and hes damn well not just going to touch you when your sleeping so whats the issue.

Also regarding women, muscle mass is not the sole decider of close quarters combat, and its not like these are just dainty women, they are trained and evidently wanting too fight.

[Captain Jin]

People used to have awkwardness serving alongside blacks, awkwardness does not mean something is suddenly wrong. If a open gay joins a unit , others will not feel perpetually awkward, and hes damn well not just going to touch you when your sleeping so whats the issue.

Stop equating gay people to black people. It's not the same. Gay people aren't a race.

Also regarding women, muscle mass is not the sole decider of close quarters combat, and its not like these are just dainty women, they are trained and evidently wanting too fight.

Wrong. They are not trained, super fit bad asses by any means and plenty of them are weak and as dainty as the flimsiest girl you've ever seen in your life.

[Gertrudius]

Also regarding women, muscle mass is not the sole decider of close quarters combat, and its not like these are just dainty women, they are trained and evidently wanting too fight.

Dude, did you read the MoD analysis on the subject that I posted? Only something like 1% of trained women could meet the physical demands of those roles. And ask any of our combat vets here on the forum, you have to be in damn good shape to keep up in the infantry. Women are also at significantly grater risk of injury, because according to the report women have to work 50%-80% harder to achieve the same results as a man, and presumably that includes the ones that actually can meet the requirements. As my source puts it, what's the point of taking the added risks, both those known and not presently anticipated, if there is not an actual added benefit to doing so? At least here in the US infantry slots are filled easily hence there isn't a particular demand for women in a role that quite frankly doesn't suit their gender in general.

[Wilder]

shipping to basic on Wednesday.

Not gay though.



I suppose I can't yet play the personal experience card yet, but I will say I once lived in an ice cave for about a week and a half with an openly gay dude. Wasn't a problem. I think we can relax on this a bit.

[NotYetRegistered]

Yes.

Reminds me of the gay bomb, though,

[skh1]

Anyone, anyone, willing to serve their country should be honored by their fellow citizens, especially in these times.

[Braindead Colonel]

The army is not an extension of society. What works in the "real" world might not work in the setting of an army. Take democracy for example; it would never work, so instead you have a form of dictatorship (you do what you are told by any higher ranking officer).

The Army's mission, and sole purpose of existence, is to win wars. If most of the troops don't feel comfortable having openly homosexual troops (or left-handed people, or gingers or whatever) then that has an effect on the overall morale and effectiveness of the armed forces, simple as that.

[Wilder]

The army is not an extension of society. What works in the "real" world might not work in the setting of an army. Take democracy for example; it would never work, so instead you have a form of dictatorship (you do what you are told by any higher ranking officer).

The Army's mission, and sole purpose of existence, is to win wars. If most of the troops don't feel comfortable having openly homosexual troops (or left-handed people, or gingers or whatever) then that has an effect on the overall morale and effectiveness of the armed forces, simple as that.

And that's why black people should have separate units!

[Braindead Colonel]

And that's why black people should have separate units!

Are you saying that the US army is still prejudiced against black people? You should inform Colin Powell in that case.

[skh1]

Should we re-segregate the armed forces then? Should women be removed from the ranks as well? I appreciate what your saying but I can't say I agree. Incidently, and I can only speak for myself of course, rarely is something "as simple as that".

[Jom]

The army is not an extension of society. What works in the "real" world might not work in the setting of an army. Take democracy for example; it would never work, so instead you have a form of dictatorship (you do what you are told by any higher ranking officer).

The Army's mission, and sole purpose of existence, is to win wars. If most of the troops don't feel comfortable having openly homosexual troops (or left-handed people, or gingers or whatever) then that has an effect on the overall morale and effectiveness of the armed forces, simple as that.

We should address the problem as to why the troops don't feel comfortable around homosexuals. I know that some people serve in the army for their entire lives but many don't and will enter back into society still holding these prejudices. If they serve alongside homosexuals and see that they fight just as well as anyone else and that they're normal people then homophobia can be destroyed more easily.

[Braindead Colonel]

We should address the problem as to why the troops don't feel comfortable around homosexuals. I know that some people serve in the army for their entire lives but many don't and will enter back into society still holding these prejudices. If they serve alongside homosexuals and see that they fight just as well as anyone else and that they're normal people then homophobia can be destroyed more easily.

Here I respectfully disagree. The army is where you learn how to use a rifle and how to do what you are told by your superiors without questioning it. It's not a place where you learn about acceptance or about the beauty of diversity. They have Black guy/White guy buddy cop films for that.

I think that society is changing, and the morals in the Army will follow in time. But forcing down these morals upon the Armed forces would interfere with it's mission.

[alhoon]

The army is not an extension of society. What works in the "real" world might not work in the setting of an army. Take democracy for example; it would never work, so instead you have a form of dictatorship (you do what you are told by any higher ranking officer).

The Army's mission, and sole purpose of existence, is to win wars. If most of the troops don't feel comfortable having openly homosexual troops (or left-handed people, or gingers or whatever) then that has an effect on the overall morale and effectiveness of the armed forces, simple as that.

Just a note:
The army's purpose is mainly to defend the country, secondly protect civilians of any kind and for some countries, protect the country's interests.

Now, on what makes them comfortable, a line has to be drawn. If there are Satanists allowed in the army, and are allowed to have altars... then I believe gays will be more welcome by most troops and they would have less of a morale impact.

[Gertrudius]

Yes, but there should be strict regulations against fraternization within the infantry, regardless of whether the two individuals involved are both enlisted. Don't with squad dynamics, and it won't you.

[Vanoi]

Yes Anyone should be able to join the military regardless of race, sex, or sexual oreintation.

The army is not an extension of society. What works in the "real" world might not work in the setting of an army. Take democracy for example; it would never work, so instead you have a form of dictatorship (you do what you are told by any higher ranking officer).

The Army's mission, and sole purpose of existence, is to win wars. If most of the troops don't feel comfortable having openly homosexual troops (or left-handed people, or gingers or whatever) then that has an effect on the overall morale and effectiveness of the armed forces, simple as that.

I don't agree with you on this, but it is better tahn most of the arguments people have for keeping homosexuals out of the military.

[Gertrudius]

Yes Anyone should be able to join the military regardless of race, sex, or sexual oreintation.

Join regardless of sex? Sure. Participate in every capacity? not a snowballs chance in hell.