Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet amazingly, there are still people who wish we would put their own social engineering (and, yes, selecting out gays from the military when gays are part of the population is the very definition of social engineering) above the needs of the armed forces, as was done in the very recent past.
I've never understood the fascination of my fellow Americans with sexual orientation. Gay or straight, male or female, black or white, it shouldn't matter. If an American wants to join the Armed Forces as long as they meet the requirements then that should be it. That's equality, quotas and all of that other junk that sometimes get brought up is not equality. Equality is one standard for all (yes, as a veteran, I know male and female have different physical standards in the military) and everyone is given a fair shot to make it or not no matter their race, color, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.
I've never understood the fascination of my fellow Americans with sexual orientation. Gay or straight, male or female, black or white, it shouldn't matter. If an American wants to join the Armed Forces as long as they meet the requirements then that should be it. That's equality, quotas and all of that other junk that sometimes get brought up is not equality. Equality is one standard for all (yes, as a veteran, I know male and female have different physical standards in the military) and everyone is given a fair shot to make it or not no matter their race, color, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.
And for all the dire warnings of all the problems it would supposedly cause, these conveniently ignored the fact that the U.S. was hardly the first nation to do this. Other nations with first-rate militaries have done so -- such as the UK in 2000 and Israel in 1993 -- with significant issues.
So anyone willing to actually see what has happened in practice could have predicted that there would be few problems.
And for all the dire warnings of all the problems it would supposedly cause, these conveniently ignored the fact that the U.S. was hardly the first nation to do this. Other nations with first-rate militaries have done so -- such as the UK in 2000 and Israel in 1993 -- with significant issues.
So anyone willing to actually see what has happened in practice could have predicted that there would be few problems.
When I was serving I probably would have been uncomfortable with an openly gay marine serving with me. But then again I was 18 and pretty immature so that wouldn't have been a good reason to deny Americans the opportunity to serve. Now that I'm a little bit older (24) just a little bit wiser, I don't see why I would have cared at all. Straight marines can serve with females without coming on them all the time so I'm quite sure gay service members can do the same.
I served with gay guys back in the day ('Nam) and everybody knew who was what. One of the gays was a small guy that was one of the most efficient killers I have ever known. Sexual preference has nothing to do with courage and skill.
Everybody knew who was what? But, still, how could everyone tell who was gay? They didn't seem anywhere near as thrilled as you when women became the topic of conversation?
I served with gay guys back in the day ('Nam) and everybody knew who was what. One of the gays was a small guy that was one of the most efficient killers I have ever known. Sexual preference has nothing to do with courage and skill.
I had a like experience. When you got into one you were happy to have the dagger at your side.
Then what were you using the sarcasm icon for? I still don't get it - well, actually I'm pretty sure your comment was intended to be sarcastic from the beginning and really was a statement about how gay people shouldn't "flaunt" their sexuality (you know, ever mention it in any circumstance) and should remain in the closet.
I did include a link to a study about the effects of allowing gays to serve in the military over the last year in the initial post. Did you not at least skim it?
I didn't and don't see it as a "sarcasm font". I see it as a "raise eyebrows" font.
As I said, I think it can be helpful to know who is gay. That let's all those nasty anti-gays know right up front who they have to watch what they say around so they won't be accused of "hate" toward gays.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
