Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Proud to be an American.....

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 2:46pm
My view is that it really doesnt matter.

Take a homosexual man in B.D.U. and stick him next to a straight man in the same get up, throw them both a riffle, and 10 times out of 10 they will both perform equaly.

Sexuality doesnt inhibit the ability to pull a trigger.
Back to Top
Jack Carver View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Carver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 2:48pm
Yeah, but I don't think our Army takes people and gives them BDUs and throws them weapons.
There's a bit of training and stuff before that....
Where you have to communicate, interact, live with people.
And that's where the problems come from.


Edited by Jack Carver - 27 February 2006 at 2:48pm
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 2:50pm
Thats precisely why if you are a homosexual, you keep your mouth shut.

If your just one of the guys. No problems will arise.

And if you cant do that, you dont need to be in the army.
Back to Top
Jack Carver View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Carver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 2:53pm
I agree completely.

Seems a lot of the forumers don't agree with that last statement though because it's discrimination or supression er something.


Edited by Jack Carver - 27 February 2006 at 2:54pm
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 2:57pm
Its not supression.

If you are indian, and your culture dictates that you wear a turban, and you arent prepared to cut your hair and take off the turban, you dont join the army.

If you arent prepared to follow military code, follow orders and if need be die.

Do not join the military.

Edited by DBibeau855 - 27 February 2006 at 2:58pm
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 2:58pm

Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:

Where you have to communicate, interact, live with people.
And that's where the problems come from.

Think about that...   so we are apparently in agreement that homosexuals are as capable of soldiering well as straight folk.  We are apparently in agreement that g.ays are not all rapists that will be assualting guys in the showers (unlike straight folk, who apparently can't stop from assaulting each other in the nation's military academies).

So we are all apparently in agreement that g.ays in the military are not a problem at all - so long as the straight folk don't know about it.

When the only thing that changes to cause a problem is that suddenly the straight guys learn that a fellow soldier is homosexual (he was presumably just as g.ay ten minutes earlier), HOW ON EARTH is that anything but the straight guy's problem?

Sounds like we are all agreeing that g.ayness itself is not a problem - it is the AWARENESS of g.ayness that is the problem, and the attitudes held by straight folk.  Why should it be the responsibility of g.ays to hide in the closet, just so to not offend the bigots?  That is about an unjust result as I can imagine.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:01pm

Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

Its not supression.

If you are indian, and your culture dictates that you wear a turban, and you arent prepared to cut your hair and take off the turban, you dont join the army.

Actually, most European armies now permit turbans specifically to accomodate Sikhs.

But even so - homosexual is simply something you ARE.  Even if you were completely celibate and followed all the rules, and shot a bunch of terrorists, the US military would still kick you out simply for declaring yourself g.ay.  It has nothing to do with DOING.



Edited by Clark Kent - 27 February 2006 at 3:02pm
Back to Top
Jack Carver View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Carver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:02pm
Because the straight folk and the bigots are the 99.9% majority.
And you're not gonna change the attitudes of 99.9% of the army on a subject like homosexuality.
So you make the .1% compromise.

Edit: compromise was a bad word choice... you screw over the .1% so you can have an effective military without having to worry about that crap.


Edited by Jack Carver - 27 February 2006 at 3:03pm
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:


Sounds like we are all agreeing that g.ayness itself is not a problem - it is the AWARENESS of g.ayness that is the problem, and the attitudes held by straight folk. Why should it be the responsibility of g.ays to hide in the closet, just so to not offend the bigots? That is about an unjust result as I can imagine.



This is exactly why we have the policy. There are people in the military that will time and time again make sexual slurs at a person, wear them down so much as to make them an inefective soldier, make sure they are the first person through a door every time during a room sweep. There are people that willfully do this to african americans.

We have this policy to try and avoid a scandal.

Think on this, if in a firefight there was a friendly fire fatality. But its widely known that the person who was killed was a homosexual, and he was shot in the back by accident.

Questions will be asked for months about his death, and the US governments stance on the military, it would be preceived that this sort of thing is tollerated.

People will assume he was shot in the back intentionaly.

Its for their protection.

And more to the point, if you arent prepared to follow army policy and procedure, you just shouldnt join. No matter what the policy.

Edit: Clark my familiarity with policy is mainly geared to US Army policy.

Edited by DBibeau855 - 27 February 2006 at 3:12pm
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:12pm

Originally posted by Carver Carver wrote:

Because the straight folk and the bigots are the 99.9% majority.
And you're not gonna change the attitudes of 99.9% of the army on a subject like homosexuality.

And this exact argument was raised when blacks were integrated.  It was wrong then, and it has not improved with time.

 

Originally posted by DBib DBib wrote:

There are people in the military that will time and time again make sexual slurs at a person, wear them down so much as to make them an inefective soldier, make sure they are the first person through a door every time during a room sweep. There are people that willfully do this to african americans.

Thank you for bringing in the blacks - my point exactly.  And if we have some white soldiers that are harassing black soldiers for being black, do we not discipline the white soldiers?  If we applied the g.ay policy, we would instead give the black soldiers a DD for being black.

Originally posted by DBib DBib wrote:

my familiarity with policy is mainly geared to US Army policy

And so it is with most people in the US.  Most people could stand to examine other countries.  The ENTIRE EU has unlimited open g.ayness in the military, and their armies seem to be working fine.  Israel has had men and women serving side by side, in combat outfits, for decades (see Dr. Ruth the sniper), and they also seem to be doing fine.

The fact is that the US is BEHIND the curve on this as to the countries to which we normally like to be compared.



Edited by Clark Kent - 27 February 2006 at 3:12pm
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:16pm
Yes, i know. But you also have to consider the huge culture gap between the US and the Europeans..

Isreal first had women serving in action during the six day war and it was a necesity, and they saw that women were fine in battle. But in our culture, we dont like seeing our women getting blown to bits on the front line. Soldiers will linger over dead boddies and medics will have trouble declaring triage.

And our country just hates anyone that is different. We hate the french, and many people dont know why, they just do. This country is full of biggotry weather we realise it or not. Our culture is a materialistic and biggoted culture.

The men our culture puts out right now would have extreme difficulty living with an openly homosexual man.

Edited by DBibeau855 - 27 February 2006 at 3:18pm
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:23pm

Originally posted by DBibeau855 DBibeau855 wrote:

Yes, i know. But you also have to consider the huge culture gap between the US and the Europeans..

Very true.  These do not translate directly at all.  I use Europe as an example of how it is possible to have a perfectly well functioning military despite deep societal homophobia (which is just a deep/strong in some parts of the EU as it is here).

Quote And our country just hates anyone that is different. We hate the french, and many people dont know why, they just do. This country is full of biggotry weather we realise it or not. Our culture is a materialistic and biggoted culture.

Which, to me, is an argument for MORE pro-g.ay policies rather than the opposite.  It is specifically BECAUSE of the general American xenophobia that we NEEDED the Civil Rights Act and similar rules.  If we were better people this type of thing wouldn't be needed.  It took an act of Congress to integrate blacks into the military.

It is specifically because of the entrenched homophobia, IMO, that we need to take more aggressive action to beat it.  It won't go away on its own, to the detriment of all.



Edited by Clark Kent - 27 February 2006 at 3:23pm
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:29pm
Yep. I feel that us living so far away from Europe, weve developed our own culture, and inferior one. We isolated ourselves from humanity so to speak.

To beat this sort of thing, we need a cultural revolution of sorts. Where people are accepted at face value, america isnt ready for that. Half the country still wants white bread, battered wives and white picket fences.

I know a lot of homosexuals, some very femenine, others, very masculine. It makes me sick the emount of critisism they get, it wouldnt happen nearly as much if they were just black. In my eyes, its just another minority.

The christian right says that its a blaspehemy before god, but 200 years ago christians used the bible to justify slavery. And right now, its being twisted to permit polygamy. So, i have a heard time beleiving a lot of what the christian right has been spewing out lately.

Edited by DBibeau855 - 27 February 2006 at 3:30pm
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

It took an act of Congress to integrate blacks into the military.
Executive Order

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:47pm

Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

It took an act of Congress to integrate blacks into the military.
Executive Order

DOH!

I do believe you are correct.  My bad.

Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:53pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

It took an act of Congress to integrate blacks into the military.
Executive Order


DOH!


I do believe you are correct.  My bad.

Yeah, there's no way in hell congress would have gone along with this one. Truman had balls. Big, juicy balls.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
Jack Carver View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Carver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:56pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by Carver Carver wrote:

Because the straight folk and the bigots are the 99.9% majority.

And you're not gonna change the attitudes of 99.9% of the army on a subject like homosexuality.

And this exact argument was raised when blacks were integrated.  It was wrong then, and it has not improved with time.


What percent of the population is g.ay?
I have no idea, but I'd bet a cool million that it's less than the percent that is black.
That already makes blacks more accepted since there are more of them.

Then, what is different b/t blacks and whites...?
Well there's skin color, culture, maybe physical build, by a little, other things.

The difference between g.ays and straights though is a lot bigger than that. Being **edited** is unnatural. Natural--like nature. Where males and females have sex to reproduce. Sexuality is something that goes a lot deeper than skin color, and I realize you don't see it like I do, but it's a big gap.

And because of that, the gap is going to be closed even slower than that of race.
And lets look at the race gap. Hmm... what is it? like 2006 or something and there's still racism everywhere you look.

It's not as simple as "getting the rest of the army to accept g.ays".
I think it's unrealistic to think things will get better any time soon.
Till then..... move to Europe.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 3:57pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

You accuse DBib of not knowing what he talking about, and then you spew a big pile of random nonsense and speculation.  gg.

Actually, you entirely missed the point of post here. I wasn't accusing DB of anything-he said that braindead rednecks and baptists were responsible for the existence of don't ask odn't tell. And he was completely wrong in that. Only about one eighth of my post was directed towards him-the rest was my opinion. And it was speculation. 

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

This point is so idiotic that it doesn't even warrant detailed rebuttal.  But I will make one quick observation - various armies throughout time have included men, women, and/or homosexuals, and they have all done quite well.  Spartans, anyone?  And, of course most of our allies around the world (Israel, all of Europe) allow men, women and/or homosexuals to serve together with little or no restriction. 

Actually, you missed my point altogether. I was referring to basic training. Our military, as you said, is responsible for alot of pregnancies.

My whole point was that during the training  of a recruit it was important that he or she was completely free of distraction. And I said for 99% of all people this wasn't a problem. I probably didn't explain my post clear enough, so it's my fault, but I think you missed the point entirely.

Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 4:08pm
Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:


Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by Carver Carver wrote:

Because the straight folk and the bigots are the 99.9% majority.

And you're not gonna change the attitudes of 99.9% of the army on a subject like homosexuality.


And this exact argument was raised when blacks were integrated.  It was wrong then, and it has not improved with time.

What percent of the population is g.ay?I have no idea, but I'd bet a cool million that it's less than the percent that is black.That already makes blacks more accepted since there are more of them.

By that logic then maybe we shouldn't allow jews in the army because there are more blacks then jews in america. After all they did kill our savior
Quote
Then, what is different b/t blacks and whites...?Well there's skin color, culture, maybe physical build, by a little, other things.The difference between g.ays and straights though is a lot bigger than that. Being **edited** is unnatural.

and yet I know people that have been **edited** ever since they were born, there was never any question about their sexuality, they were always like that. I don't think they chose at 5 to be **edited**. Care to cite any sources on this subject?
Quote
Natural--like nature. Where males and females have sex to reproduce. Sexuality is something that goes a lot deeper than skin color, and I realize you don't see it like I do, but it's a big gap.And because of that, the gap is going to be closed even slower than that of race.
Eesh
And lets look at the race gap. Hmm... what is it? like 2006 or something and there's still racism everywhere you look.It's not as simple as "getting the rest of the army to accept g.ays".I think it's unrealistic to think things will get better any time soon.Till then..... move to Europe.[/QUOTE] Is there still racism? Yes. Is it A LOT better? YES. Things will get better as soon as people become more educated about different people and the old biggots die off. You have to start somewhere, it's a slow change because some people take so damn long to die.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2006 at 4:12pm

Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

you entirely missed the point of post here.

And to the extent that I missed the point, please ignore my snippy reply.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.