Should/shouldn't (openly - I think you're allowed in if you don't tell anyone) gay people allowed in the US army?

Why/why not?

In my opinion gay people should be, because if they serve their countries it doesn't matter about their private life as long as it doesn't affect them, and on the same token you might let someone who suffered domestic abuse and this may affect them, whereas the gay person probably isn't affected. Also, if it were an interview for any other job and they were turned down because they were gay, then that's prejudice and that's deemed wrong.

Debate on

You sexual orientation has no relation to whether you should get a job or not. Though I guess as a comprimise they could be secretly gay (I think there's a better word for secretly, just can't find it ) and then it wouldn't matter at all.

As

Yes, but why hide a large part of yourself away just for a job?

It'd be a pain that you have to hide that away while in a job, just to keep it. Bearing in mind you're putting your life on the line.

I think that all homosexual personnel in the armed forces should come out of the closet. It's worse for morale when a guy you think is straight turns out to be gay than it is to have an openly gay individual.

My 2¢.

There's no real danger to gays in the military anymore, so why not?

I don't see how that would be a problem. I mean the US Army has some pretty tough qualifications if they don't really need soldiers. A man with a narrow urethra can't even join.

I guess they really shouldn't care. If a guy is built like a tank, why deny his will to fight for his country because he is gay?

My views are better expressed by this man (swearing).

DADT is a terrible policy.

To focus on America, to say that having soldiers be openly gay would cause problems for the troops is insulting. Numerous first world nations, including England, Australia, Canada, Isreal, France, Italy, Germany, and many others, are able to run a military just fine while still allowing openly gay men and woman to serve.

To say that America's own military is not capable of the same is an insult to the professionalism of our soldiers, and is admitting that our soldiers are not well trained enough to handle having people who are 'different' or people they dislike serve with them.

Am I saying that there won't be dissonance? Of course not. Bigots will be bigots, and the men and woman serving who are open about their sexuality will most likely be treated differently in many aspects. However, this is a terrible reason to not allow them to be openly gay. So what if there's going to be social barriers? "Breaking down the barriers is hard!" is a terrible excuse, and our military would still be confined to only white males if such an argument had always held as much water as it seems to now.

If you want to argue that it's for the safety of the homosexuals, I'm sure they are well aware of the risk. Those that wish to 'stay safe' can continue to hide their sexuality regardless of DADT, and those that don't care and would rather be open about themselves should be able to do so.

You should keep your sexuality to yourself in the army whether your gay, straight, Bi, or you like doing monkeys. Your in the army to "protect your country" and although it's not as if soldiers are brutalised and barred from social contact, things that could even be mildly distracting should be kept to yourself.

We also have to realise that most soldiers are pretty young and may not be out of there high school musical drama fantasy world that they created in high school, and I'm sure you all know what happens to the average queer when you get a bunch of immature young men together.


However if the straight men are allowed to say there straight the gays should to it's just simple equality. But I'de prefer it be atleast looked down upon to start telling people your sexuality.

I honestly think that "don't ask, don't tell" is effective, but not necessary. I don't think there should be any rules against being openly gay in the military, but if I was a homosexual, I definitely wouldn't talk about it. It's very likely that there will be some homophobic goosedown in the military to antagonize open homosexuals. Perhaps the best way to solve this would be to punish any soldiers who harass homosexuals.

Not all gays are like Jack McFarland though.

Well, of course. Most gays do not fit stereotypes. But even without the stereotypes and "gay" behaviors, homophobia persists. Even if a gay man was more masculine than the average straight man, it's most likely that someone will harass him for being gay.

If anyone goes against the rights of gays here, they will get flamed... hard. lol.

But that's just the short term though.

In the long term, it's better to be open. In the end, just don't talk about who you're fudgeing. They shouldn't be denied service, and don't ask don't tell only encourages harassment, because it conveys that it's wrong to be gay, and that's what these people learn and believe.

What are we suppose to be debating on? How homophobic we are?

"Oh shizzle! They're are GAY people in your army? We'll I don't know about you but... I give Iran."

There should be no debate, anyone can go in the army if they choose. No matter how different you are. Something you learn quickly, you'll never be exactly what someone else wants you to be.

I have no problem with Gays revealing their sexual orientation in the army, but the US Army better make sure they aren't harassed about it in any way.

these people are willing to risk their lives for the sake of serving the armed forces of their country. If they are mentally and physically fit to fulfil their missions to said service then who has the right to deny these people the right to join as homosexuals and be open about it.

This step however requires the U.S military to make sure these individuals are not harassed in any way after revealing their sexual orientation. And with that, they can trully say they have moved forward as people.

That sounds like the tolerant approach.

People who are against gay rights don't deserve tolerance.

So be tolerant of everyone, except intolerant people.

FULLY LOGICAL.

I'm pointing it out because it's such a stupidly obvious double standard.

Whoever said that everyone deserves tolerance is an idiot.

It's not a double standard- tolerance is just not a principal that should be applied to everyone.

It's that kind of thinking that brings about affirmative action and the belief that two wrongs make a right.

if you are tolerant against intolerant people how can you fight intolerance?

i am NOT tolerant against racists and the like

i fight em, i don't support em
really

are you so naive that you think that someone has to be tolerant against everyone to have "the moral higher ground"...

seriously...

No, my point is, do you not accept them as people?

Because that is what was being insinuated, they're not worthy of human rights because they're against gay rights.

Furthermore, even IF homosexuality is a genetic...whatsit, I don't see why that means gays should have certain rights over others. In my view, if homosexuality is genetic, then that means that they simply have to be more cautious. Should kleptomaniacs get special rights because they are genetically inclined to steal things? Should people who enjoy bestiality have certain rights to marry animals? Should people with genetic inclinations towards smoking, or drinking, or gambling receive extra welfare payouts in order to feed those addictions, because it's "genetic"?

Basically, in summation, my point is this. Just because something is genetic doesn't mean LOL SPECIAL RIGHTS TIME!! Not all genetic abnormalities are good for society, just like unlimited rights are not good for society. Sure, they may benefit your pleasures, opinions, wants, ideas, etc. etc. etc., but they do not benefit the whole of the group. That's the point of laws. Benefiting everyone to the best of everyone's abilities.

The hell? They're saying that they should get equal rights and that people against Gay rights should not be treated with respect. You've gone way past putting words in their mouths and have gone straight to making shizzle up.

amen to that




excuse me?

there is one big bloody difference
a kleptomaniac harms others
someone who is gay doesn't...


nice try for stereotyping and branding

but you might want to compare things that are comparable...

Bahahaha. You fell right into it.

Yes, kleptomaniacs are harmful. Now look at the OTHER genetic abnormalities I mentioned.

The others, for the record, were:

• Bestiality--this harms others?
• Drinking--generally harms others
• Smoking--debatable but probably harms others
• Gambling--this harms others?

Thus, my point stands.

@Gillis: Again, I put the word "insinuating" for a fudgeing reason. Holy fudge, read the whole post.

You're not even trying to make any sense, are you? You're completely missing the point of anything anyone has said. Not a single person mentioned giving gay people EXTRA rights. The second you get that through your head is the second I don't feel like punching a wall every time I read one of your posts in this topic. fudgeing profanity isn't helping your fudgeing point either.

Anyway.

As I said before, anyone who is homosexual in the armed forces should just come out. No loss of position, discharge, etc. For the reasons I gave.

your point is a failure like all your posts in this thread

i fail the see the problem
and your mocking tone ain't helping either

nor does it help your point whatever that may be

but i guess you are just a little kid who wishes to bash people on an internet forum

this is the debate room not the scape lounge

Bold: failure to apply logic

Also failure to apply continuity to the discussion. Lemme help.



Also, it's only fair to point out that just going about saying that anyone with an opposing viewpoint is stupid is a failure to apply virtually any form of intelligence yourself. It also represents closed-mindedness and distaste for critical thought.

No that's not fair. You made some ridiculous statements that should be addressed, you can't just take them back by going "Well anyways gays are actually pretty chill and need rights and stuff. Discuss." and then expect people to ignore what you said previously.

I feel like this hardly applies because your previous response to Egghebrecht makes little sense, so I'd like to bring it up again:


What the hell are you going on about here. I honestly can't make heads or tells of how this applies to anything.

How is it any worse for morale?

Anyway, I don't see how being gay really makes a difference to whether you should be allowed in the army - what's stopping you?

why just the US army?

anyways, if gay people want to be in the army, why not?
do you think gay people cant shoot guns?

''OOOOOH MY GOD! that was so loud, like, oh my god!''

thats probably not the type of gay people going into the army

I think I understand what you're saying
And, I guess we really have to avoid the whole stereotype of gay people being wusses etc.
It's just... Not true.

All the gay people in my school are EXACTLY like that.
Except for this one kid who plays with fire.

It's basically treating them like less than human.

Apparently, your school is representative of the whole of the US. Not to mention that there are people who you don't know to be gay.

Gays in the army should not even be an issue if they are capable of doing the same tasks, as are women in the army or black people in the army, or short people in the army, or even ginger people.

The main issue should be temprament, obviously people in the army need to gel as a team, and it hard to do that with a ridiculously over the top super-camp idiot ballet-dancing around the barracks on twinkle toes and still work together as a well trained unit.

Gays yes, super camp no.

If any soldier is acting like that he obviously isn't well trained enough to be out of training yet. Every soldier, whether they're straight or homosexual, is going to learn that sort of self control during their training.

Actually my gay friend put it in the best reasoning so far: In a way, it's almost like putting a straight guy in with the women. you'd be doing everything with the gender you find sexually attractive. Of course, not all gay people are like that.

I think he makes the most sense.

No, gays shouldn't be allowed in the army. They're the only group in America left untouched by war. Their pure minds should be left for the thoughts of man on man or woman on woman romance.

Anyway, to be on topic, Sleepy doesn't see how this would be giving gay people more rights. If people wanna go get themselves blown up, then let 'em (unless they're gay. A gay person's life is worth the lives of seven straight people).

Actually the role of a gay man throughout history has been a turbulent one, they have one of the most important roles in society but get the least recognition...

I am betting we have all seen a gay builder/boxer who can handle himself and one of those supercamp morons on reality shows playing with hair?

Who would you prefer to have on your side?

Traditionally millenia ago he would've been the one left behind to guard the home fort while the "alphas" were away picking a mammoths teeth, this was a role not to be taken lightly as he was usually responsible for upto 100 people, old and young and the women.

If this role had been ignored humans probably would've been killed off many centuries ago as any overgrown moggy would've come into the village to play.

A gay man still has the strength and speed of an alpha as well as the tactical knowhow, yet his is not someone to publically beat his chest and do a Tarzan screech.

I see no reason why gay people should not be allowed into the army if they can do the job, men are very hierachal and familial, much more so than women and will band together to save the people they see as their own...if someone makes them uncomfortable though chances are they will not band together as they should.

I agree with you, but there is still probably going to be violence over it. It's generally a safety issue.

~~Samarkov

Care to explain how sexual orientation is a safety issue?

Don't worry it isn't in any way.

Yes, they should be as long as they dont let it intefere with their jobs

As some sexual orientations may suffer alot of violence and abuse in a macho macho environment, because of this, I'm all for the dadt policy, sexual orientations is irrelevant in serving your country and therefore making it policy to be irrelevant seems best. Also it prevents any kind of bias in interviews, or makes the gay person feel more comfortable.

The policy doesn't make it irrelevant.

Kicking people out of the military for being gay isn't "irrelevant." Imagine being fired from any other job for being gay- it's so ridiculous and backwards.

That is completely different... the army is much more dangerous than the normal work place and I can imagine it would probably be dangerous for units or the gay person. Anyway, the point is that the person would have to be pretty blabby to tell others, which is why I support dadt because no one will find out, no harm done.