Whilst most other developed nations military are gradually moving into the 21st century, America's military seems to be stuck in a homophobic time warp. Why shouldn't a gay man or women be allowed to serve their country like any other citizen? And there's more evidence that discharging homosexuals from military service causes more damage that it baselessly claims to prevent. (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/us012303.htm)

Would anyone in here have any objections to serving in the military with gays, and if so, why?

Whilst most other developed nations military are gradually moving into the 21st century, America's military seems to be stuck in a homophobic time warp. Why shouldn't a gay man or women be allowed to serve their country like any other citizen? And there's more evidence that discharging homosexuals from military service causes more damage that it baselessly claims to prevent. (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/us012303.htm)

Would anyone in here have any objections to serving in the military with gays, and if so, why?

If I was a male in the military, I dont' think having gay people there would bother me so much because I figure they'd keep their hands to themselves, or at least, keep their hands to themselves around straight guys. Most gay men I've been around are opposed to flirting with straight guys (they go: Eww, that's gross). I think a big reason is that they don't want a gay guy who's emotionally attached to another gay guy watching their "spouse" die in battle and then having a mental breakdown. I know that not all gay people are emotionally weak like that, but that's what the sentiment is here in America.

They'll get crazy hazed , despite whatever punishment they would give to suppouse soldiers.

But it is a funny thought though , If a guy likes my ass and I get shot he'll get all rambo like '' OMG THEY SHOT JOHNNY YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!!''

*m-60 rampage*

If I was a male in the military, I dont' think having gay people there would bother me so much because I figure they'd keep their hands to themselves, or at least, keep their hands to themselves around straight guys.

yeah, but they've also got to keep their hands to themselves period. i mean, would you feel comfortable sleeping in a barracks with two guys that were openly gay and single?

slave, it's not that gays aren't allowed to serve in the US military. they are. it's just that they are not allowed to openly display their gay affections because they've got a job to do and it messes things up when you're involved with your coworkers. sure it can happen with straight people in the military too, and i believe that is also forbidden unless you're married.

the "don't ask, don't tell" rule is about the best compromise i can think for this situation. the other soldiers have to be comfortable too.

i mean, would you feel comfortable sleeping in a barracks with two guys that were openly gay and single?

Yes I'd be fine cos I'm an adult, non american and fairly secure in my own sexuality.

yeah, but they've also got to keep their hands to themselves period. i mean, would you feel comfortable sleeping in a barracks with two guys that were openly gay and single?

Are you afraid they might fondle your irresistibly tight buttcheeks whilst you're asleep, whether they know you're straight or not? Seriously, what would your specific problem be?

And 'feeling uncomfortable' won't cut any ice with me.

If you have a job that directly involves killing people, or helping to serve the machine that does the killing, then don't dare tell me you can't sleep soundly at night because: 'I feel uncomfortable because there's a fag sleeping three beds down from me. What? Hey... those kids last week were in an combat zone - I was just doing my job'.

slave, it's not that gays aren't allowed to serve in the US military. they are it's just that they are not allowed to openly display their gay affections because they've got a job to do and it messes things up when you're involved with your coworkers. sure it can happen with straight people in the military too, and i believe that is also forbidden unless you're married.

the "don't ask, don't tell" rule is about the best compromise i can think for this situation. the other soldiers have to be comfortable too.

I don't mean to be rude whocares, but this is semantics-sprinkled self-contradiction.

Service is reciprocal, you serve your country and can be expected to be treated in a certain manner by your country in return. The word 'serve' in this case therefore means one thing for hetrosexuals and something very different for gay men/women. And declaring themselves gay (or being 'outed' ) is the problem, irrespective of whether they display their affections for a co-worker (which is an issue that transcends sexuality, and is therefore irrelevant). A man who's risked his life for his country, can have an unblemished career destroyed even though he has kept his private life his own business, but has been outed by someone else.

I call that disservice.

The "don't ask, don't tell" rule is discrimantory, plain and simple. I'm sure that some soldiers aren't happy about having to fight with '[insert epithet] niggers' in their units, but there's no piece of legislation to pander to their bigoted views, is there?

I don't think homosexuality itself should be removed from the military, but any specific problems that arise should be dealt with on an individual basis. Such as fraternization between two soldiers (homosexual or heterosexual relationships), or some fruity boy who can't pass his shooting qualification because his wrist is too limp to hold the rifle straight.

But I guess the military estimates that it can save money and time by just banning homosexuals outright.

What people need to realize is that there is a huge difference between gays and fags. I have plenty of gay friends back home, and they all feel the same way. Fag is a personality trait, gay is a sexual choice.

Now, that said, I personally don't care if there are any gays in the military. I mean, coworker fraternization should be treated the same way as it is now, and if there really is a problem with any specific people (which really doesn't happen as much as most homophobics believe), they should be treated just like anyone else who gets reported for sexual harassment.

I think gay people have more attention than necessary. I really don't see a problem. Public displays of affection on bases or in uniform is pretty looked down upon, so if they were to have their own relationships with someone else of the same gender, the only place they'd really show it would be off base in civies. Even then, I don't really care.

No Fags in this man's army!

http://military-gay-school.com/images/gay-military-porn.jpg

ooOOO Rah!

Yes I'd be fine cos I'm an adult, non american and fairly secure in my own sexuality.

I WOULD have a problem with it, but not because they're openly gay and single. If that's all that it was, then whatever. I see no grounds for dismissal at all.

However, if a straight guy and a straight girl were also single, in the same barracks as me (the "barracks" example doesn't quite work that way because I know of no open-bay barracks outside of boot camp, but I'll play) and making out/dry humping every night, I would have a problem with that. Same if it were two women or two men.

Even if it weren't that severe, there are rules for that, too. On base in uniform? PDA can (though not often) land you in non-judicial punishment. If it's with two people of the same sex, it can (not always) throw you an administrative separation. The latter I don't think is necessary.

Everyone here needs to remember that any display of affection between service members while on duty is illegal, even for married couples. They just recently changed a rule for those in Iraq that allows married couples to live in the same homes when feasible. Still, while on the clock no two people in uniform are allowed to even hold hands. The military has to remain professional, and I'm glad they do.

I personally would have nothing against homosexuals serving in the military, but I could easily see a huge amount of hazing taking place if there were any flamers, or even people that admitted to being homosexual. You may liken this to racism, and how laws don't accommodate it in the military, but the problem is that disliking homosexuals is far more ingrained than racism.

For example, at my Recruiting Station we naturally have a very diverse group of people in the DEP. They widely range in age, education, race, ethnicity, etc. Everyone gets along just fine, the only people that are disliked are guys that are morons or assholes, it has nothing to do with the factors outside their control. We are all modern guys that didn't become prejudicial or intolerant in our outlook in regards to national origin or race. However, I could easily see an open homosexual getting shunned or hazed whenever the recruiters aren't looking. There is an extent to which many young men these days are tolerant. Yeah, jackketch can go on and on about him being secure in his sexuality and whatnot but that doesn't change the fact that any open homosexuals, particularly in combat jobs, would be messed with, and the problem is not likely to away any time soon.

I saw the 60 Minutes special on homosexuals in the military, and one of the guys they interviewed who was gay was a Navy linguist. He mentioned how back in the states on base everyone knew he was gay, and no one cared. He got deployed to Iraq as an interpreter for a Marine infantry unit, and he decided it was in his best interest to "go back into the closet", and he mentions how(not directed at him, just in general) he heard many anti-homosexual comments by the Marines in their everyday talk(never would have guessed it, young Marine guys not liking gays).

So perhaps this case illustrates a point. Perhaps it would be in the best interests of the military that openly homosexual men not be allowed to serve in combat roles, just as the case for women. Just as in the case of women, you may say that people should be more enlightened and secure in themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about aggressive young men on the front lines. What they are likely to do to homosexuals is not conducive to a military environment, nor is the huge amount of oversight and constant investigation that would be required to secure a tiny fraction of men be best in a time of war.

What people need to realize is that there is a huge difference between gays and fags. I have plenty of gay friends back home, and they all feel the same way. Fag is a personality trait, gay is a sexual choice.


I'm sure your friends appreciate your acceptance of their sexual choice...:rolleyes:

I don't even know what to say, but do you really think you are being progressive? I'm still laughing.

I'm sure your friends appreciate your acceptance of their sexual choice...:rolleyes:

I don't even know what to say, but do you really think you are being progressive? I'm still laughing.

Stop confusing gender with sexual preference. If you want to discuss reactionary, it's your belief that someone couldn't separate the two.

I was only commenting on his use of the word choice.

What people need to realize is that there is a huge difference between gays and fags. I have plenty of gay friends back home, and they all feel the same way. Fag is a personality trait, gay is a sexual choice.

Do you seriously believe that homosexuality is, in its entirety, is a choice simply because you can't envisage a man genuinely not being attracted to women?

Everyone here needs to remember that any display of affection between service members while on duty is illegal, even for married couples. They just recently changed a rule for those in Iraq that allows married couples to live in the same homes when feasible. Still, while on the clock no two people in uniform are allowed to even hold hands. The military has to remain professional, and I'm glad they do.

So where is the professionalism and maturity when it comes to having an openly gay man in the ranks, even though he serves just as well as anybody else?

I personally would have nothing against homosexuals serving in the military, but I could easily see a huge amount of hazing taking place if there were any flamers, or even people that admitted to being homosexual. You may liken this to racism, and how laws don't accommodate it in the military, but the problem is that disliking homosexuals is far more ingrained than racism.

No, it's far more prevalent than racism, because the system allows it to be that way. Saying that you shouldn't bother simply because it would be difficult to change is pathetic.

So where is the professionalism and maturity when it comes to having an openly gay man in the ranks, even though he serves just as well as anybody else?

The answer to that is related to what I have to say about your next point.

No, it's far more prevalent than racism, because the system allows it to be that way.

So you think the average soldier learns an anti-gay attitude from the military? No, he doesn't. Anti-gay attitudes are already held long before enlisting.

There is a reason the US military wasn't desegregated in the 1930s. The attitude of the average American citizen and servicemen had to change significantly for desegregation to not cause serious problems, which is why it was held off until the 1950s, with vivid memories of black servicemen serving with distinction in the Second World War. Thankfully, from my experiences, the military is not nearly as racist as it almost certainly used to be. We have enlightened as a nation and our military has as well.

Saying that you shouldn't bother simply because it would be difficult to change is pathetic.

You seem to think that this is a church picnic we are talking about, not an institution who's job it is to wage war and who is currently in sustained combat operations that are taxing it immensely. Instituting a change of this magnitude, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in all positions, I can guarantee would cause unnecessary strife and endanger lives. After the Iraq war is over(this could be a long way off I know) we should definitely seriously consider allowing gays to openly serve in the military. There is a time and place for everything, and I do not believe allowing gays to openly serve is of such paramount importance that I would want to endanger American soldiers' lives for it at this time.

You seem to think that this is a church picnic we are talking about, not an institution who's job it is to wage war and who is currently in sustained combat operations that are taxing it immensely. Instituting a change of this magnitude, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in all positions, I can guarantee would cause unnecessary strife and endanger lives. After the Iraq war is over(this could be a long way off I know) we should definitely seriously consider allowing gays to openly serve in the military. There is a time and place for everything, and I do not believe allowing gays to openly serve is of such paramount importance that I would want to endanger American soldiers' lives for it at this time.

Allowing Gays to serve openly might actually be a strategic boon. History tells us that homosexuals make some of the best soldiers, all that 'band of brothers' kind of thing.

If your soldiers aren't professional enough to cope with openly gay fellow soldiers without 'unnecessary strife and endangering lives' then that tells us a lot about how immature they are and that they probably aren't capable of doing their jobs.

A real professional wouldn't give a flying fuck about whether his buddy was oggling his butt, a professional simply wants to know his buddy has his butt.

The couple in the next bunk can have freaky deaky mpnkey sex all night , be they hetro or homo. Only important thing is that they don't keep others awake with their antics.

If your soldiers aren't professional enough to cope with openly gay fellow soldiers without 'unnecessary strife and endangering lives' then that tells us a lot about how immature they are and that they probably aren't capable of doing their jobs.

A real professional wouldn't give a flying fuck about whether his buddy was oggling his butt, a professional simply wants to know his buddy has his butt.

The couple in the next bunk can have freaky deaky mpnkey sex all night , be they hetro or homo. Only important thing is that they don't keep others awake with their antics.

^ This, ultimately. I wouldn't want homophobes, racists, and sexists in the military, but I don't think you can really test for something like that.

Also, I chose the word choice, mainly because it's my personal belief that everything is your own choice in life. You can choose to change anything about yourself (except diseases and deformities, that kind of stuff), and ultimately, it's your choice to be something. I mean, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with them choosing to live that lifestyle, But that's a more philosophical topic.

Did you wake up one morning and think " you know what, I think I'm going to fuck women". No, in the same way gay people didn't wake up one day and think " gee vaginae are kind of yucky, I think I'll try out this gay thing".

(I tried to use vaginas, but spell check says I have to use vaginae... hehe vaginae)

If your soldiers aren't professional enough to cope with openly gay fellow soldiers without 'unnecessary strife and endangering lives' then that tells us a lot about how immature they are and that they probably aren't capable of doing their jobs.

A real professional wouldn't give a flying fuck about whether his buddy was oggling his butt, a professional simply wants to know his buddy has his butt.

I do not believe all of our soldiers, particularly the youngest ones who are in combat roles, are mature enough to handle open homosexuals in a professional manner. Remember what I said about the people at my Recruiting Station. Yes, this does say something about a lack of professionalism. Does it mean they are so unprofessional they cannot do their job? No, it doesn't, and you saying that is a cheap shot towards our soldiers.

When was the last time a military with openly serving homosexuals engaged in as long and costly sustained operations as the USA is in right now? I'm not going to badmouth any other nation's military, but it is certainly something to think about.

You seem to think that these periphery cases of things such as homosexuality are an excellent reflection of the professionalism of a military force. Just look towards history. The Allied powers in WW2 were openly sexist, racist, and homophobic and they still managed to execute the world's largest war with professionalism and integrity.

The Allied powers in WW2 were openly sexist, racist, and homophobic and they still managed to execute the world's largest war with professionalism and integrity.

I can think of many words to describe the allied forces in WW2, "professionalism" and "integrity" wouldn't be among them.

Has anyone stopped and considered the reason why we don't want open homosexuals in the military?

Put yourself in a servicemans position. You're sharing a shower with 12 other naked men - do you want one of them to be turned on?

As a straight man, if I was showering with 12 women, I'd have a raging boner, dreaming of doing the hot ones.

[This one is true] Howabout because the chain of command doesnt want coed rooms to stave off relationships, they put two men in a room who happen to be gay together? You don't want to hear any friggin moaning and banging on your bedroom wall, let alone imagine whats going in there.

Consider the situation when its below 0 out, and you're forced sleep with another man just so you both can stay warm and survive? You damn well want that guy to be as uncomfortable as you are.

What about a homosexual's safety? There is still plenty of hatred to gays in America.

^^^I didn't know people still thought this way.

"I don't want gays in my military, they'll run around with raging boners ass fucking each other while us decent straits are just trying to sleep. They might try to smuggle in some little boys to rape too"

Oh and just for an example, people don't run around with boners fucking each other at nude beaches.

Has anyone stopped and considered the reason why we don't want open homosexuals in the military?

Put yourself in a servicemans position. You're sharing a shower with 12 other naked men - do you want one of them to be turned on?

As a straight man, if I was showering with 12 women, I'd have a raging boner, dreaming of doing the hot ones.

[This one is true] Howabout because the chain of command doesnt want coed rooms to stave off relationships, they put two men in a room who happen to be gay together? You don't want to hear any friggin moaning and banging on your bedroom wall, let alone imagine whats going in there.

Consider the situation when its below 0 out, and you're forced sleep with another man just so you both can stay warm and survive? You damn well want that guy to be as uncomfortable as you are.

What about a homosexual's safety? There is still plenty of hatred to gays in America.

Anyone that immature and unprofessional should not be allowed to carry anything more deadly than a potato peeler, a blunt one for preference. And they certainly have no business being in an army.

I used to work high end *cough* security *cough* (No not 'rent a cop', most of us were former special forces so you can guess what sort of 'security' I'm talking about). I've had to work with people I consider scum. Former secret policemen, ex-torturers, rapists, paedophiles and fuck knows how many homosexuals.

All that matters is that they DO THEIR JOB. NO more, no less. I couldn't care less if they got a boner thinking about me, all I need to know is that they will clear leather.

If I was a soldier and I had to shower with 12 female soldiers then yes I'd probably have an erection. I would trust that the female soldiers were fellow proffesionals and would understand it was purely a bio-chemical reaction to visual stimulus and it means nothing. Same goes for any gay I took a shower with.

Anyone that immature and unprofessional should not be allowed to carry anything more deadly than a potato peeler, a blunt one for preference. And they certainly have no business being in an army.

I used to work high end *cough* security *cough* (No not 'rent a cop', most of us were former special forces so you can guess what sort of 'security' I'm talking about). I've had to work with people I consider scum. Former secret policemen, ex-torturers, rapists, paedophiles and fuck knows how many homosexuals.

All that matters is that they DO THEIR JOB. NO more, no less. I couldn't care less if they got a boner thinking about me, all I need to know is that they will clear leather.

If I was a soldier and I had to shower with 12 female soldiers then yes I'd probably have an erection. I would trust that the female soldiers were fellow proffesionals and would understand it was purely a bio-chemical reaction to visual stimulus and it means nothing. Same goes for any gay I took a shower with.

Alright, so lets quit thinking that being in the military is a job where you go home and your job doesn't affect you there too. Because in the US Military, on and off duty, that code still applies, and no matter what you do, at some point in your career your job will be your life.

Think about that. You're not only working with a homosexual, you're living with them.

Honestly, I've seen a lot of professional people have their moments to. Can you look at yourself and say you will remain professional at all times for 6 - 15 months at a time? I can't say I've seen a lot of people do that.

And while I'm glad you feel that way about boners in the shower, I assure you some bitch in that group will be offended and deem it unprofessional and file sexual harassment lawsuit against you. And you will get your ass handed to you because thats the fucked up US legal system for you.

Alright, so lets quit thinking that being in the military is a job where you go home and your job doesn't affect you there too. Because in the US Military, on and off duty, that code still applies, and no matter what you do, at some point in your career your job will be your life. Well if you were labouring under the illusion that being a soldier is just like any othe rjob then yes you should stop thinking that. It isn't. For a start no other job requires you to relinquish your basic right of Freedom Of Expression.

Think about that. You're not only working with a homosexual, you're living with them. So fucking what?! If you aren't capable of sharing a bed naked with a fellow soldier every night for six months, be he homosexual or not, then you better pray you never ever get captured by the sort of people who ran Abu Grad.

If you are worried your buddy's Morning Wood might be caused by dreams of you then any decent interrogator will break you in days. Like I said, I've worked with former torturers ( from the Stasi for example), and you can take my word for it that sexual fears or hang ups are one of the best methods of breaking someone. Inflicting pain isn't.




And while I'm glad you feel that way about boners in the shower, I assure you some bitch in that group will be offended and deem it unprofessional and file sexual harassment lawsuit against you. And you will get your ass handed to you because thats the fucked up US legal system for you.

No argument there. When you're right , you're right.

Like you won't get raped if there are only "straight" males in the army.

I remember a dutch soldier being raped by 2 english soldiers in Bosnia. It's good to know you can count on your allies.

It's good to know you can count on your allies.

You can, as long as they aren't British.

*zing*

You can, as long as they aren't British.

*zing*

It's not like you have much choice; we're the only ones stupid enough to give you clowns any siginificant support.

It's not like you have much choice; we're the only ones stupid enough to give you clowns any siginificant support.

Bullshit. The Aussies seem to have our back more than anyone else in recent memory, IIRC.

Bullshit. The Aussies seem to have our back more than anyone else in recent memory, IIRC.

Please define "have our back".

Bullshit. The Aussies seem to have our back more than anyone else in recent memory, IIRC.

Sure they are at your back, they sure as fuck don't want to be anywhere in front of you. Not the way your soldiers shoot.

The reason fags aren't allowed in the US military openly is becuase this is one of the few places that empty rhetoric doesn't thrive. We are talking wars, history, protecting countries, taking over countries, REAL FUCKIN LIFE.....not some dimestore feel good mantra.

My whole point is gays are NOT normal/reliable people. No matter how many fucked up judges or politically correct organizations change their idealogy....the whole idea of "gays are just like everyone else" is NOT a realistic or believable mindset. Perhaps a few more generations of MTV feeding the masses of faggotry being perfectly acceptable may finally fool the powers that be that homosexuality is somehow "ok", but right here right now it still is a negative.

For all of you folks not understanding this from a military outlook, go look up the word "uniform" and see how it applies in a military setting......especially during wartime.

Gays are substandard humans and thusly can't be relied upon during combat or some other dire situation..... its that simple.

The reason fags aren't allowed in the US military openly is becuase this is one of the few places that empty rhetoric doesn't thrive. We are talking wars, history, protecting countries, taking over countries, REAL FUCKIN LIFE.....not some dimestore feel good mantra.

My whole point is gays are NOT normal/reliable people. No matter how many fucked up judges or politically correct organizations change their idealogy....the whole idea of "gays are just like everyone else" is NOT a realistic or believable mindset. Perhaps a few more generations of MTV feeding the masses of faggotry being perfectly acceptable may finally fool the powers that be that homosexuality is somehow "ok", but right here right now it still is a negative.

For all of you folks not understanding this from a military outlook, go look up the word "uniform" and see how it applies in a military setting......especially during wartime.

Gays are substandard humans and thusly can't be relied upon during combat or some other dire situation..... its that simple.

Irony: There are gays in the military that died fighting for the right you have to complain that they are sub-standard, yet your life won't amount to half of what their lives have.

You can whine and complain, but you know at the end of the day, there are gays in the military doing their job better than heterosexuals. Not every homosexual is some raving flamboyant faggot. Some of them know when to stop worrying about sex drives and when to do their job. If you wanna start making baseless claims then every heterosexual male in the army is a raving lunatic around women that can't keep their hands off themselves. That's how all the movies portray it.

Irony: There are gays in the military that died fighting for the right you have to complain that they are sub-standard, yet your life won't amount to half of what their lives have.

Oops, there you go back to the EMPTY RHETORIC again. Right out of the blocks the whole...."that mystery phantom entity" that has been attacking my rights/life/idealogy every minute of every day of my life. PLEASE! Spare us your fairy tales and lets talk facts shall we? Geez silly me, this is Masero here......facts to them is like poison killing off all of their mindless rants.

And then you finish up with more stereotyping and fabricated illusions about what a "real" soldier's makeup is. At least you are consistent with your stupidity and games of make believe......

Oops, there you go back to the EMPTY RHETORIC again. Right out of the blocks the whole...."that mystery phantom entity" that has been attacking my rights/life/idealogy every minute of every day of my life. PLEASE! Spare us your fairy tales and lets talk facts shall we? Geez silly me, this is Masero here......facts to them is like poison killing off all of their mindless rants.

And then you finish up with more stereotyping and fabricated illusions about what a "real" soldier's makeup is. At least you are consistent with your stupidity and games of make believe......

There you go again writing a book long response with maybe 10 words of importance.

The key fact is: There are gays in the military who have done more for your freedoms and liberties than you will ever do. Get over it. You're just too shallow to admit the fact that gay people can do good, too. Not that you've done any good, peckerhead.

I find it humorous to see DaGuru, normally sporting a fiery hatred of the military, regressing back to his reactionary caveman instincts in regards to homosexuals.

I find it humorous to see DaGuru, normally sporting a fiery hatred of the military, regressing back to his reactionary caveman instincts in regards to homosexuals.

You need to go back and reread my posts on this thread. I am certainly NOT anti-military....I've said plenty of times I've always been a military geek since before I had pubic hair. What I am against in the naive mindset of enlistees willingly putting themselves into service for empty political rhetoric. Until Red Dawn is happening to your country there is no "need" per se.....but when you get right down to it, peace through mutha fuckin firepower.

Careful there Byss, these issues ain't always black and white........so stop attaching bogus generalities for those that aren't all warm and cozy about this forum existing. I LOVE the military, I'm just questioning the participants in it....

You need to go back and reread my posts on this thread. I am certainly NOT anti-military....I've said plenty of times I've always been a military geek since before I had pubic hair. What I am against in the naive mindset of enlistees willingly putting themselves into service for empty political rhetoric. Until Red Dawn is happening to your country there is no "need" per se.....but when you get right down to it, peace through mutha fuckin firepower.

Careful there Byss, these issues ain't always black and white........so stop attaching bogus generalities for those that aren't all warm and cozy about this forum existing. I LOVE the military, I'm just questioning the participants in it....

No you're not. You're a hate-mongering close-minded fuck. Gays can do a job just as well as straights. What's next? Are blacks inferior to whites? Are women inferior to men? Step off your high horse, you fucking self-enamored bitch.

If you were so tight in the pants for the military before you reached puberty, maybe you're trying to repress your sexual frustration that is caused by seeing men in uniform. I guess you just want a big bad soldier to rescue you and then bend you over, huh big boy?

The reason fags aren't allowed in the US military openly is becuase this is one of the few places that empty rhetoric doesn't thrive. We are talking wars, history, protecting countries, taking over countries, REAL FUCKIN LIFE.....not some dimestore feel good mantra.

My whole point is gays are NOT normal/reliable people. No matter how many fucked up judges or politically correct organizations change their idealogy....the whole idea of "gays are just like everyone else" is NOT a realistic or believable mindset. Perhaps a few more generations of MTV feeding the masses of faggotry being perfectly acceptable may finally fool the powers that be that homosexuality is somehow "ok", but right here right now it still is a negative.

For all of you folks not understanding this from a military outlook, go look up the word "uniform" and see how it applies in a military setting......especially during wartime.

Gays are substandard humans and thusly can't be relied upon during combat or some other dire situation..... its that simple.

For once I'm going to have to disagree with my learned friend, M'lord.

You see, whether or not someone is a substandard human being (its still better in the german "Untermensch") ain't really an issue.

I've known a lot of scum, worked with a lot of them. I'm talking about people thrown out of the elite troops ...and not because they were well rounded individuals either.

Where someone likes to stick his dick is irrelevant in a fire fight.

One of the places I worked, if there was a problem we couldn't 'solve' then we had the GSG-9 on speed dial. When you work at that level then all you want is to know that the guy next to you will do whatever it takes to keep you alive. That fact he was thrown out of the legion for being too nasty and for liking his girls under the age of 7 ain't an issue.

No you're not. You're a hate-mongering close-minded fuck. Gays can do a job just as well as straights. What's next? Are blacks inferior to whites? Are women inferior to men? Step off your high horse, you fucking self-enamored bitch.

If you were so tight in the pants for the military before you reached puberty, maybe you're trying to repress your sexual frustration that is caused by seeing men in uniform. I guess you just want a big bad soldier to rescue you and then bend you over, huh big boy?

By that little outrage I think I struck way too close to home. So are you a fag yourself, and that is why you got so offended? If so then your little ranting tirade is just proving my point that much more about gays NOT being normal. I said the word "pubic hair" and of course the first thing that comes to your mind is sex, repression, and all other sorts of problems you seemed to struggle with and are trying to project on me. See, I was using it as a chronological reference in regard to age...and the sick deviant that you are is having these carnal thoughts you can't control. Uh huh, your kind really should be in a "battle" scenario........when you can't even maintain your cool with just a little text going across the screen.

BTW, in case you didn't notice.....being a certain race or gender is something you have ZERO control of. However having whatever sexual identity you apply to yourself and how you conduct yourself accordingly is all THOUGHTS and CHOICES that you have complete control of....every second of every day. Quit trying to ride the coattails of legitimate groups that can/are discriminated against based SOLELY on their outward appearance. Their argument doesn't hold any water for any angsty gay that is trying to use the same excuse when in reality their hardships are based solely by their ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS.....not something that was just genetically doled upon them by chance.

Where someone likes to stick his dick is irrelevant in a fire fight.



This is probably the greatest thing I've read all week.

For once I'm going to have to disagree with my learned friend, M'lord.

You see, whether or not someone is a substandard human being (its still better in the german "Untermensch") ain't really an issue.

I've known a lot of scum, worked with a lot of them. I'm talking about people thrown out of the elite troops ...and not because they were well rounded individuals either.

Where someone likes to stick his dick is irrelevant in a fire fight.

One of the places I worked, if there was a problem we couldn't 'solve' then we had the GSG-9 on speed dial. When you work at that level then all you want is to know that the guy next to you will do whatever it takes to keep you alive. That fact he was thrown out of the legion for being too nasty and for liking his girls under the age of 7 ain't an issue.

Jack I would never dispute that any one human being is capable of whatever action/accomplishment. Whether that be good, bad or indifferent. I'm saying in a broad general sense.......psychologically a homosexual person won't be as stable, responsible, capable, able, or logical. Sure there are exceptions, just like you could find a handful of 300+ pounds guys that might make some decent tunnel rats. But there ARE standards for being in the military....physical, mental, and emotional. And when the chips are down in a real life-death scenario (not some empty rhetoric to make the MTV generation feel all warm and snuggly) history dictates you want the best of the best in those scenarios.....not mutants or sub-standard soldiers.

By that little outrage I think I struck way too close to home. So are you a fag yourself, and that is why you got so offended? If so then your little ranting tirade is just proving my point that much more about gays NOT being normal. I said the word "pubic hair" and of course the first thing that comes to your mind is sex, repression, and all other sorts of problems you seemed to struggle with and are trying to project on me. See, I was using it as a chronological reference in regard to age...and the sick deviant that you are is having these carnal thoughts you can't control. Uh huh, your kind really should be in a "battle" scenario........when you can't even maintain your cool with just a little text going across the screen.

BTW, in case you didn't notice.....being a certain race or gender is something you have ZERO control of. However having whatever sexual identity you apply to yourself and how you conduct yourself accordingly is all THOUGHTS and CHOICES that you have complete control of....every second of every day. Quit trying to ride the coattails of legitimate groups that can/are discriminated against based SOLELY on their outward appearance. Their argument doesn't hold any water for any angsty gay that is trying to use the same excuse when in reality their hardships are based solely by their ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS.....not something that was just genetically doled upon them by chance.


Hello, we already had this conversation, douchebag. I've got a vagina. And no, I'm not a lesbian.

You're just failing at everything again. You tell jack you're not discriminating? Sexual preference is something to discriminate against. Some people honestly won't have control if they have gender-identity crisises. You're still just a hate mongerer.

I'm saying in a broad general sense.......psychologically a homosexual person won't be as stable, responsible, capable, able, or logical.

And the broad general evidence to support this statement can be found where, exactly?

You're just failing at everything again. You tell jack you're not discriminating? Sexual preference is something to discriminate against. Some people honestly won't have control if they have gender-identity crisises. You're still just a hate mongerer.

No, actually you are the one doing the failing....and yet again you need to slow down or calm down before reading these posts. You are prattling on about shit nobody ever said.

For the record I absolutely DO discriminate towards certain people (gays or non gays being completely irrelevant in all of this)....but it isn't about their outward appearance, instead their BEHAVIOR. I abhor stupidity and selfishness. People that are oblivious to the rest of the world get my goat. Fools that mistakenly believe their own agenda is more important than the greater good of the entire Universe.....they are my mortal enemy.

So to go real slow since you had such a problem the first time. Race is an outward appearance you have no control over. So is gender. So is height, age, looks....a whole host of shit that people just "have". But BEHAVIOR is something people do....something they have control over each and every day.

And in the scenario you are discussing if a faggot is somehow "discriminated" against, then it is because of their CONSCIOUS DECISIONS that has brought their weirdness/differences/instability to the table.

Got it now, or do I have to hold your hand and walk you through this syllable by syllable????

And the broad general evidence to support this statement can be found where, exactly?

Ummmm, real life? Look out your window, surf the netz, watch TV....its everywhere. Cmon Slave, lets not kid ourselves ok? You know damn well there is a higher proportionate of socially and emotionally fucked up people in the gay community then in the non-gay community. Christ....gays were emo before emos were emo. Go witness the suicide rates, the depression, all of the social angst they put themselves through vs. NORMAL fuckin people.

No, actually you are the one doing the failing....and yet again you need to slow down or calm down before reading these posts. You are prattling on about shit nobody ever said.

For the record I absolutely DO discriminate towards certain people (gays or non gays being completely irrelevant in all of this)....but it isn't about their outward appearance, instead their BEHAVIOR. I abhor stupidity and selfishness. People that are oblivious to the rest of the world get my goat. Fools that mistakenly believe their own agenda is more important than the greater good of the entire Universe.....they are my mortal enemy.

So to go real slow since you had such a problem the first time. Race is an outward appearance you have no control over. So is gender. So is height, age, looks....a whole host of shit that people just "have". But BEHAVIOR is something people do....something they have control over each and every day.

And in the scenario you are discussing if a faggot is somehow "discriminated" against, then it is because of their CONSCIOUS DECISIONS that has brought their weirdness/differences/instability to the table.

Got it now, or do I have to hold your hand and walk you through this syllable by syllable????

Reading this shit you write is like listening to the teacher on snoopy. You make no sense in anything you do.

You're seriously just an ass backwards, hate mongerer. I don't understand how you can openly hate gays yet say you're better than everyone else because you're not a racist. Your logic fails. And the fact that you say someone else fails doesn't make them fail. You can prattle on and on about how you're write and I'm just a peon but in the end, you hate the people that give you the liberty to be a cunt and your reasoning is a generalised conclusion that all gay people are "faggot-ass selfish stupid heads" to take all of that useless garbage you write and condense it down. Seriously, now? You're going to judge another person based on their sexual preference and lump them all together? Again... whether it's an outward appearance that you can't control or a behavioral pattern THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL, you're just a self-absorbed prick. Like I said earlier... first we got gays, are coloured people next? What about short people? Are you going to hate midgets b/c thier parents happened to fuck up their gene pool? Whether you can control the decision or not doesn't change the fact that you're generalising, stereotyping, and disregarding other human life, just because they're different.

In short, you've got people issues and it's yet another reason why you should shut that pie hole of your's every once in a while.

Reading this shit you write is like listening to the teacher on snoopy. You make no sense in anything you do.

You're seriously just an ass backwards, hate mongerer. I don't understand how you can openly hate gays yet say you're better than everyone else because you're not a racist. Your logic fails. And the fact that you say someone else fails doesn't make them fail. You can prattle on and on about how you're write and I'm just a peon but in the end, you hate the people that give you the liberty to be a cunt and your reasoning is a generalised conclusion that all gay people are "faggot-ass selfish stupid heads" to take all of that useless garbage you write and condense it down. Seriously, now? You're going to judge another person based on their sexual preference and lump them all together? Again... whether it's an outward appearance that you can't control or a behavioral pattern THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL, you're just a self-absorbed prick. Like I said earlier... first we got gays, are coloured people next? What about short people? Are you going to hate midgets b/c thier parents happened to fuck up their gene pool? Whether you can control the decision or not doesn't change the fact that you're generalising, stereotyping, and disregarding other human life, just because they're different.

In short, you've got people issues and it's yet another reason why you should shut that pie hole of your's every once in a while.

Again, you just spewed a whole lot of shit based on nothing I or anyone else has said. I NEVER said I hate gays.....either in this forum, anywhere else on the webz, or in real life.

And spare me your "Gays can't control themselves". Because if you REALLY believe that, then you are only pushing my argument that much further along....that they have these urges/needs/desires (whatever the fuck you want to describe them as) that they can't curb....well then, you are discussing a sub-standard type of human.

One more time, real slow. I don't give a shit who sleeps with who. But when you have to base an ENTIRE lifestyle around it....that is when it gets weird, creepy and just plain immature. And it ain't even about a lifestyle, but most importantly just how someone carries themselves in this world. Simple example for you, and hopefully you'll know my references:

Rob Halford and Richard Simmons. Halford being the front man for Judas Priest for 30+ years....Simmons being the flamboyant fitness guy. Both gays, both love men, both have a very different and unique personna in this world. I don't give a fuck how much dick either one of them has sucked, it is completely irrelevant in my analysis of who they are as people and how they conduct themselves in the world. Now if Rob Halford walked in my door right now....I would treat him like any other guest. Hell, I'd probably let him babysit my kid if he was up for it. Based on what I've seen, read, heard all these years.....I think I could "trust" Rob to be a responsible adult.

Now if Richard Simmons walked in the room, I'd hightail it out of there....and probably wouldn't let my son within a hundred feet of that weirdo. It ain't about worrying that Richard would "make my son gay" or he'd try to molest him. Again, sexual preference has NOTHING to do with what I'm discussing. Quite simply Richard is a twisted fucking entity in this world, a headcase to the uber-extreme. (One of those unstable people we've been talking about).

Now for someone else, they might take a completely different stance....and have an absolute opposing comfort level in regard to these two. Maybe there is someone on these boards right now that would run from Rob and embrace Richard. That is fine by me, again I'm making judgements on their BEHAVIORS and MANNERISMS that I feel comfortable with and want to be around....not how they conduct themselves behind closed doors sexually.

This is the problem with the homosexual agenda...they believe their quirky weirdness should be forcefed down everyone's throats, even if the sexual orientation is irrelevant to someone's distate towards their inappropriate and outlandish lifestyle/behavior. And the ONLY reason faggots have the soapbox they do in today's day and age is because of this twisted politically correct society we currently have. Somewhere in history "freedom of thought/beliefs/idealogy" got perverted into "forced tolerance of everyone/anything".

Sorry to dissapoint you Masero, I don't hate gays at all.....just hate some of the actions by some of the participants in that particular demographic. And I'm fully aware of the probability that a gay person will be less stable, less able, less responsible than someone that is hetero. That isn't being bigoted.... just more informed and refusing to goose step to a fad mantra mindset on the heels of politically correct rhetoric.

Gays are substandard humans and thusly can't be relied upon during combat or some other dire situation..... its that simple.

sounds like hate to me, hate mongerer.


And when I said they can or cannot control their choice to be gay, I'm not saying they can't control their urges, you twisted douche. You keep mixing my words up, to further your cause. But your smoke and mirrors is just that, a plain trick that you use when you start to lose an argument.

DaGuru = "Go back to bed, America. We have everything under control".

Damn , what Daguru is saying people choose to be gay you cant choose your race or gender. Its not hate , he's stating the obvious. Theres a reason why women cant do certain MOS's (jobs) in the military , same goes for homosexuals.

Ummmm, real life? Look out your window...

I'm afraid my dining room window isn't a reputable source of information, DaGuru.

Maybe I should get it double glazed?

"Hey, did you know all niggers have AIDS?"

"Bullshit, where's the evidence?"

"I looked through my window, fool, and it's double glazed hence all the information gets twice-filtered, so therefore I know it's true!"

In any case looking at homosexaul behaviour on the web, in society, up in the sky, etc... isn't going to help any in determining the ability of homosexuals to serve in the military. You cannot reliably assess the capacity of a group on the basis of their behaviour in a completely different context. Honestly, do you think you can take a group of stereotypical, highly-strung, spandex n' sequined, raging scream queens and say that they are the reason all homosexuals should be barred from military service?

The only military service homosexuals like that will ever perform, is the type involving sucking on sailor cock.

sounds like hate to me, hate mongerer.


And when I said they can or cannot control their choice to be gay, I'm not saying they can't control their urges, you twisted douche. You keep mixing my words up, to further your cause. But your smoke and mirrors is just that, a plain trick that you use when you start to lose an argument.

DaGuru = "Go back to bed, America. We have everything under control".

Sure, I'm the one mixing words up.....when its YOU that is putting up paragraphs ranting about shit no one ever said or even came close to saying.

And you really need to go back to grade school and relearn what the true meaning of the word "hate" is. Meh, perhaps because you have such a simplistic outlook in the world and limited intellectual abilities......everything appears black or white to you. In your feeble mind it has to be EITHER "this" or "that". Like I said to Meta a day or so ago....don't get so hostile and angsty just because the rest of the world doesn't view life with such a milquetoast outlook on things like you do. Take the blinders off and try to see things from other perspectives. You'd be amazed at the wonders you could observe, if only you had the maturity to not be so scared to leave your tunnel vision that is leading you down such a blind path.

Sure, I'm the one mixing words up.....when its YOU that is putting up paragraphs ranting about shit no one ever said or even came close to saying.

And you really need to go back to grade school and relearn what the true meaning of the word "hate" is. Meh, perhaps because you have such a simplistic outlook in the world and limited intellectual abilities......everything appears black or white to you. In your feeble mind it has to be EITHER "this" or "that". Like I said to Meta a day or so ago....don't get so hostile and angsty just because the rest of the world doesn't view life with such a milquetoast outlook on things like you do. Take the blinders off and try to see things from other perspectives. You'd be amazed at the wonders you could observe, if only you had the maturity to not be so scared to leave your tunnel vision that is leading you down such a blind path.

You use big words and you write alot... but that doesn't change the context of

Gays are substandard humans and thusly can't be relied upon during combat or some other dire situation..... its that simple.

you, sir, are a self-enamored, stereotypical homophobic hate mongerer, through and through.

Maybe if you didn't think you were something special just because you're heterosexual, and didn't call gays substandard, generalising them LIKE YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS ENTIRE TIME... or maybe if you didn't pretend that you were awesome just because you used big words, people might actually take you serious... but instead you get 10 day bans and people overlook anything you have to say because all you can do it write baseless claims, then claim other peopler are doing the same. Go back to bed, America. We have everything under control.

In any case looking at homosexaul behaviour on the web, in society, up in the sky, etc... isn't going to help any in determining the ability of homosexuals to serve in the military. You cannot reliably assess the capacity of a group on the basis of their behaviour in a completely different context. Honestly, do you think you can take a group of stereotypical, highly-strung, spandex n' sequined, raging scream queens and say that they are the reason all homosexuals should be barred from military service?

Slave, I gotta fly for most of the rest of the day....but I didn't want to leave your post unresponded to. The reason ALL homosexuals should be barred from the military is because there ARE set pre-requisites to join that organization. It's like saying...."why can't stoners serve and openly toke". Yes there are SOME daily marijuana smokers that lead responible lives (and perhaps are better because of their habit), so why shouldn't ALL stoners be allowed to serve in the military????? Again, you can't take exceptions and make rules for an entire demographic based on those exceptions.

There are also issues of cohesiveness (both military and in the civilian world) that you can't just forcefeed down a finely tuned unit's throats. Go back to my 300 pound tunnel rat analogy. Sure SOME 300 pound behemoths might have the ability to do the job just as well, but it isn't practical or wise to have to deal with all the rest (and their accompanying burdens) just for some politically correct rhetoric to feel good to some of the masses.

Slave, I gotta fly for most of the rest of the day....but I didn't want to leave your post unresponded to. The reason ALL homosexuals should be barred from the military is because there ARE set pre-requisites to join that organization. It's like saying...."why can't stoners serve and openly toke". Yes there are SOME daily marijuana smokers that lead responible lives (and perhaps are better because of their habit), so why shouldn't ALL stoners be allowed to serve in the military????? Again, you can't take exceptions and make rules for an entire demographic based on those exceptions.

There are also issues of cohesiveness (both military and in the civilian world) that you can't just forcefeed down a finely tuned unit's throats. Go back to my 300 pound tunnel rat analogy. Sure SOME 300 pound behemoths might have the ability to do the job just as well, but it isn't practical or wise to have to deal with all the rest (and their accompanying burdens) just for some politically correct rhetoric to feel good to some of the masses.

So being gay and having a job in the military is politically correct? I think you're probably wrong, again, but whatever.

If someone can do the job, let them do the fucking job. If they can't, tell 'em to go the fuck home. It's the simple. You want to overcomplicate it by saying "NO GAYS IN MY MILITARIES!" because you're afraid one of them might have a mental breakdown faster than a straight guy.

If that 300 lb man can do his tunnel rat job, then good on him. That doesn't mean you have to let everyone else try. You're twisting facts again.

Yeah, jackketch can go on and on about him being secure in his sexuality and whatnot but that doesn't change the fact that any open homosexuals, particularly in combat jobs, would be messed with, and the problem is not likely to away any time soon.

...the fact that said fag has an M-16 and very little supervision in the fog of battle, otoh, just *might* change that fact you mention.

This is a good thing. It is worth a few american soldiers to preserve freedom for all - the whole premise of the military, is it not?

...the fact that said fag has an M-16 and very little supervision in the fog of battle, otoh, just *might* change that fact you mention.

This is a good thing. It is worth a few american soldiers to preserve freedom for all - the whole premise of the military, is it not?

Too true, don't mess with Pansies and screaming Irons! When they're nasty then they are really nasty. All that female like vindictiveness plus male 'directness'.

You guys can keep pretending you don't have fags in the forces if you want, but that's all it'll be.

Did DaGuru fall in a well?

I know a gay former soldier, now bouncer, who is one of the hardest men I've ever met. I've seen him work, he's fucking ruthless.

As for how I'd feel about serving with openly gay guys, well, I currently work with plenty of them. Their sexuality isn't an issue. It just doesn't matter. They do their jobs and do them with the same variation in skill and vigour as I see in straight guys. I'd have no problem with gays openly serving.

When the shit hits the fan, you don't really care about your coworkers sexual preference.

A lot of this comes up in the downtime, when you've got plenty of time doing nothing, and you're finding imaginative names to call each other.

We all know fags can't fight worth shit, we don't need them holding back our military from kicking ass. There are several tests that could and should be applied. They are also crybabies and would sympathize for muslim assholes.

We all know fags can't fight worth shit, Is this why you get the shit kicked out of you regularly? we don't need them holding back our military from kicking ass. Remind me please, when did your army last 'kick ass'? War Of Independance?

Is this why you get the shit kicked out of you regularly? Remind me please, when did your army last 'kick ass'? War Of Independance?

Oooooh! Get 'em Jackie boy!

Remind me please, when did your army last 'kick ass'? War Of Independance?

Thank you, sir, for proving my point. Our army has been integrated with fags since that glorious war.

Thank you, sir, for proving my point. Our army has been integrated with fags since that glorious war.

Ya think?

Its rumoured that George Washington was gay and only married for a 'Beard'

A quick look at wiki even gives some hints

George Washington was introduced to Martha Dandridge Custis, a widow who was living at the White House Plantation on the south shore of the Pamunkey River in New Kent County, Virginia, by friends of Martha when George was on leave from the French and Indian War. George only visited her home twice before proposing marriage to her 3 weeks after they met. George and Martha were each 27 years old when they married on January 6, 1759 at her home, known as The White House, which shared its name with the future presidential mansion. The newlywed couple moved to Mount Vernon, where he took up the tuckahoe life of a genteel planter and political figure. They had a good marriage, and together they raised her two children by her previous marriage to Daniel Parke Custis, John Parke Custis and Martha Parke Custis, affectionately called "Jackie" and "Patsy."[19] George and Martha never had any children together — an earlier bout with smallpox followed by tuberculosis may have left him sterile

Ya think?

Its rumoured that George Washington was gay and only married for a 'Beard'

A quick look at wiki even gives some hints


Are you seriously using wiki as a reference?

We all know fags can't fight worth shit, we don't need them holding back our military from kicking ass. There are several tests that could and should be applied. They are also crybabies and would sympathize for muslim assholes.

Are you seriously using wiki as a reference?

Why, which part of your asshole did you get yours from?

Why, which part of your asshole did you get yours from?

A little something called logic.

A little something called logic.

Yes, troll logic.

The reason fags aren't allowed in the US military openly is becuase this is one of the few places that empty rhetoric doesn't thrive. We are talking wars, history, protecting countries, taking over countries, REAL FUCKIN LIFE.....not some dimestore feel good mantra.

My whole point is gays are NOT normal/reliable people. No matter how many fucked up judges or politically correct organizations change their idealogy....the whole idea of "gays are just like everyone else" is NOT a realistic or believable mindset. Perhaps a few more generations of MTV feeding the masses of faggotry being perfectly acceptable may finally fool the powers that be that homosexuality is somehow "ok", but right here right now it still is a negative.

For all of you folks not understanding this from a military outlook, go look up the word "uniform" and see how it applies in a military setting......especially during wartime.

Gays are substandard humans and thusly can't be relied upon during combat or some other dire situation..... its that simple.

Finally someone steps up to the plate, SotB goes to all this trouble to make a troll thread and it takes this long for it to kick off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes


Give them their own unit.

You COULD mix them in, but It'd be cool to see an exclusively homosexual unit in the U.S. military.

Finally someone steps up to the plate, SotB goes to all this trouble to make a troll thread and it takes this long for it to kick off.

Finally? That was quite a minute of difference between your post and Mr. Faguru's post.

Don't do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes


Give them their own unit.

You COULD mix them in, but It'd be cool to see an exclusively homosexual unit in the U.S. military.

They would be too busy to fight because they would all be fucking each other up the butt.

They would be too busy to fight because they would all be fucking each other up the butt.


Don't give them Lube.

The reason fags aren't allowed in the US military openly is becuase this is one of the few places that empty rhetoric doesn't thrive. We are talking wars, history, protecting countries, taking over countries, REAL FUCKIN LIFE.....not some dimestore feel good mantra.

My whole point is gays are NOT normal/reliable people. No matter how many fucked up judges or politically correct organizations change their idealogy....the whole idea of "gays are just like everyone else" is NOT a realistic or believable mindset. Perhaps a few more generations of MTV feeding the masses of faggotry being perfectly acceptable may finally fool the powers that be that homosexuality is somehow "ok", but right here right now it still is a negative.

For all of you folks not understanding this from a military outlook, go look up the word "uniform" and see how it applies in a military setting......especially during wartime.

Gays are substandard humans and thusly can't be relied upon during combat or some other dire situation..... its that simple.

The evidence for this being where exactly?

Finally someone steps up to the plate, SotB goes to all this trouble to make a troll thread and it takes this long for it to kick off.

This is one of the few threads in this forum where people have been asked to actually think. Unfortunately in the military thinking is regarded as a dangerously subversive activity, so I'll just have to take the hit on being accused of trolling.

Intellectual trolling you say?

Well good stuff.

On the subject of trolling...

I mean, holy shit, SotB's thread about homosexuality in the military started and stayed on a legitimate question, and you know damn well how much of a total troll he's being.

Aside from the contradictory statement of me being a 'total troll asking a legitimate question', if you still have a problem with me (i.e. "being") then either find yourself a pair and tell me about it, or slither back to Zok and start hissing in his ear again.

But don't whine about my public behaviour and then proceed to badmouth me in front of the regulars.

Delete this post if you wish, but take the point.

We all know fags can't fight worth shit, we don't need them holding back our military from kicking ass. There are several tests that could and should be applied. They are also crybabies and would sympathize for muslim assholes.


What the fuck?....

Am I the only person that thinks this is....will somebody find the proper word or phrase to describe this? It escapes me.

On the subject of trolling...



Aside from the contradictory statement of me being a 'total troll asking a legitimate question', if you still have a problem with me (i.e. "being") then either find yourself a pair and tell me about it, or slither back to Zok and start hissing in his ear again.

But don't whine about my public behaviour and then proceed to badmouth me in front of the regulars.

Delete this post if you wish, but take the point.

So now the truth comes. Xippidy-dofaggot went moaning 2 mama zok.

Seems jacktech was right all along.

On the subject of trolling...



Aside from the contradictory statement of me being a 'total troll asking a legitimate question', if you still have a problem with me (i.e. "being") then either find yourself a pair and tell me about it, or slither back to Zok and start hissing in his ear again.

But don't whine about my public behaviour and then proceed to badmouth me in front of the regulars.

Delete this post if you wish, but take the point.

I shouldn't even be telling you to knock anything off in the first place.
I shouldn't have to hear from other mods about how my forum is being trolled by other mods. I shouldn't have to hear from other mods about "substandard mod behavior" taking place in this forum. I shouldn't have to be getting IMs and emails from regulars that consist of "Just to let you know, so-and-so mod is trolling your forum". I shouldn't have to hear the "xip what are you going to do about it?" or "xip, you've gotta do something about this" or "xip, do this" and "Xip, do that".

It's like nails on a fucking chalkboard. What do you expect me to do about it? Theres no deterrent, there's nothing I can do. You can tell another mod to do anything, not going to stop them because mods cant do shit to each other, so hey, there's one figure to go to who actually has the power to sure-as-shit sort things out.

I shouldn't have to be telling you to stop doing something that you're very knowingly expected not to do in the first place.

. I shouldn't have to hear from other mods about "substandard mod behavior" t

ROTFLMFAO!! WTFBBQ!?!!

Only sub standard mod behavior I can see is YOURS Xippy-Drippy. Better run along to Papa Smurf and get your eyes wiped. Get him to do your ass at the same time.

SOTB for Mod of this forum!

I shouldn't even be telling you to knock anything off in the first place…

My point, which you have willfully chosen to avoid, is that the issue you raised with Zok has been dealt with by Zok.

I haven't trolled this forum since then, yet still you complain about my "total" trolling, which is funny, seeing as this "total" troll's posts and the contents of his threads make up roughly 10%+ of the legitimate comment in this entire forum – which by your own admission includes this thread (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2137285). Hell, several of my troll posts have sparked more intelligent debate (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2132197 ) than some of the threads in this forum.

But the bottom line is that you appear to object to my very presence here, irrespective of what I post – clearly so by the fact you’re still complaining, even though I’m not trolling. I doubt you'll admit it, but I suspect pro-military types being made to look stupid (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2133921) pisses you off just as much as anything else. In fact I think anything I do here to disrupt the military jerk-circle will be classified by you as trolling.

Well I'm not going to stop questioning the military service, thinking or way of life, Xip - that's my interpretation of free speech and the ethos of this site - no matter how much shit it may land me in.

I shouldn't even be telling you to knock anything off in the first place.
I shouldn't have to hear from other mods about how my forum is being trolled by other mods. I shouldn't have to hear from other mods about "substandard mod behavior" taking place in this forum. I shouldn't have to be getting IMs and emails from regulars that consist of "Just to let you know, so-and-so mod is trolling your forum". I shouldn't have to hear the "xip what are you going to do about it?" or "xip, you've gotta do something about this" or "xip, do this" and "Xip, do that".

It's like nails on a fucking chalkboard. What do you expect me to do about it? Theres no deterrent, there's nothing I can do. You can tell another mod to do anything, not going to stop them because mods cant do shit to each other, so hey, there's one figure to go to who actually has the power to sure-as-shit sort things out.

I shouldn't have to be telling you to stop doing something that you're very knowingly expected not to do in the first place.

Somebody call the waaaaa-mbulance. :(

I shouldn't even be telling you to knock anything off in the first place.
I shouldn't have to hear from other mods about how my forum is being trolled by other mods. I shouldn't have to hear from other mods about "substandard mod behavior" taking place in this forum. I shouldn't have to be getting IMs and emails from regulars that consist of "Just to let you know, so-and-so mod is trolling your forum". I shouldn't have to hear the "xip what are you going to do about it?" or "xip, you've gotta do something about this" or "xip, do this" and "Xip, do that".

It's like nails on a fucking chalkboard. What do you expect me to do about it? Theres no deterrent, there's nothing I can do. You can tell another mod to do anything, not going to stop them because mods cant do shit to each other, so hey, there's one figure to go to who actually has the power to sure-as-shit sort things out.

I shouldn't have to be telling you to stop doing something that you're very knowingly expected not to do in the first place.

This is totse, get over yourself you big baby.

But you're right, you really shouldn't be telling hm to knock it off. You should be getting the fuck over it and getting on with your life you cretin.

Its for the fact they dont want soldiers in combat to become more emotionally attached then they all ready are. You need to be able to see someone you know die and move on. Im not sayin that women/gay men are emotionaly weak but theres a chance that they'll form a relationship on the battle field. I dont see anythign wrong with letting them in but its not my call. I just take my orders. Hooah

i mean, would you feel comfortable sleeping in a barracks with two guys that were openly gay and single?
I'm only comfortable with the idea of two gay men having gay sex with each other if they are gay married.