Coming out about homosexuality...

[Volpone]

Heh. That thread title ought to about give Storm an orgasm.

But seriously though, the whole "don't ask don't tell" is making the news as we get closer and closer to the next election. And whatever they might say, you gotta wonder if General Pace's comments about homosexuality being "immoral" had something to do with him not being renewed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

And the idea of gay marriages went over like a lead balloon, with most states passing laws that state that marriage is a heterosexual institution.

But you know what really surprises me during the whole "gays in the military" discussion? Homosexuals are NOT protected by equal employment opportunity laws. You can't discriminate against someone for being female, old, handicapped, black, or Muslim. But it is perfectly legal for you to fire someone for being gay.

So what do you think about that? When it gets right down to it, gays have MORE right to serve in the military than they do in other jobs. In the military you can't ask someone if they are gay. Oh yeah, if you find out about it, technically you have to fire them, but in order to find out you pretty much have to catch them in the act. Before we worry about whether homosexuals should be in the foxholes wouldn't it make more sense to make sure they are protected from discrimination in the marketplace?

 

[The Dork Lord]

There's a very good reason gay's aren't allowed in the military.

It has nothing to do with homophobia or discrimination.

I say this as a bisexual former active duty Marine. (I had already been in the closet again for some time before joining)

It's the same reason women aren't allowed in combat units.

In the field, in actual combat, there's NO ROOM for any emotional/sexual issues. There has to a certain relationship and level of trust with your fire-team-squad or what have you; and nothing can jeopardize it.

To that end, I could easily see gays/bis/lesbians in non-combat roles, but not in the line of fire.

 

[jack]

I take issue with that. It would seem to me if you were emotionally involvd with your platoon (which you are to the nth fucking degree anyway) why wouldn't you fuck someone you'd die to keep alive?

The more heightened your awareness is, the more likely you are to react "correctly" in that situaiton (imo).

 

[Volpone]

There's a very good reason gay's aren't allowed in the military.

It has nothing to do with homophobia or discrimination.

I say this as a bisexual former active duty Marine. (I had already been in the closet again for some time before joining)

It's the same reason women aren't allowed in combat units.

In the field, in actual combat, there's NO ROOM for any emotional/sexual issues. There has to a certain relationship and level of trust with your fire-team-squad or what have you; and nothing can jeopardize it.

To that end, I could easily see gays/bis/lesbians in non-combat roles, but not in the line of fire.

Hmm. I'm glad you mentioned this. One of the things that made me start this thread is that, apparently, a disproportionate of Arabic translators are gay. :shrug:

So they've got these people that they need, trained, fluent Arabic translators. And they can't keep them around because they are gay. When they integrated blacks, initially blacks were assigned to non-combat roles. Same with women. Now they have women fighter pilots, but still no women in the infantry.

Maybe they could do something like that with gays too???

 

[The Dork Lord]

I take issue with that. It would seem to me if you were emotionally involvd with your platoon (which you are to the nth fucking degree anyway) why wouldn't you fuck someone you'd die to keep alive?

The more heightened your awareness is, the more likely you are to react "correctly" in that situaiton (imo).

This is a civilian reaction. I don't fault you for it, but it would be disaster in the field. What if you're in the fox-hole with the dude that stole your bf?

I agree gays should be allowed in non-combat roles.

 

[headvoid]

This thread is fucked up. I think you all have this idea that gay people want to place their cocks in any ass going. Wierd.

I haven't served in the military - accepted - but it's perfectly conceivable that gay men might, just might, be able to curb their enthusiasm for anal sex while in a military or combat environment.

 

[Tyrant]

This is a civilian reaction. I don't fault you for it, but it would be disaster in the field. What if you're in the fox-hole with the dude that stole your bf?

Or if your bf was killed in front of you. I hadn't considered this reason before.

 

[Red Whacker]

Or if your bf was killed in front of you.

Or your brother?
Or your best bud?
Or anyone you have a loving relationship with?

Let's be pussies and try to weed out every possible emotional traumatic experience someone may have serving in the military.

 

[Tyrant]

Or your brother?
Or your best bud?
Or anyone you have a loving relationship with?

Let's be pussies and try to weed out every possible emotional traumatic experience someone may have serving in the military.

Such ties are already a liability in the army. Why should they invite more?

 

[jack]

Pick is right. It is a civilian point of view. I've never served, so I wouldn't know.

 

[guldulac]

Or your brother?
Or your best bud?
Or anyone you have a loving relationship with?

Let's be pussies and try to weed out every possible emotional traumatic experience someone may have serving in the military.

Why weed out the fags, then? Instead we should weed out the emotional trainwrwecks who can't handle seeing something go down. Or, here's an idea, they are soldiers, trained to do a job, that training should include how not to fall apart when the man next to you is killed.