Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 04:40 PM by secretagent woooman
reply to post by Pfeil



You got that right! Trust me, some of the biggest he-men you meet are gay.


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 04:40 PM by secretagent woooman
reply to post by Pfeil



You got that right! Trust me, some of the biggest he-men you meet are gay.


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 04:45 PM by dooper
reply to post by secretagent woooman



I never claimed any of the things you just accused me of. I said they have no business in a combat unit, and I also said that if I served with any, that no one in the unit knew. I guarantee you. We drank together, we went to the cathouses together, we fought together, and we trusted each other and we relied on each other. To be what you are expected to be.

I said that neither should women serve in the combat arms.

I'm saying that the combat arms is a bit different. And the combat arms, believe it or not, are not the major component of the Army.

No one questions their courage. No one questions their patriotism, no one questions their honor. I would, however, in combat arms, question their common sense.

If I were black, I'd instinctively know that I probably wouldn't be welcome at a Klan rally. If I were white, I'd instinctively know that I wouldn't be welcome walking the streets after dark in Liberty City. If I were Jewish, I would likely know that I wasn't welcome at the Kaaba. And if I were Hamas, I wouldn't be welcome at a Bar Mitzbah.

Here's the problem. Unless the military has gone completely pansy in the last few years, those in combat arms are overall, among their brothers, one crude bunch. You have to be.

Imagine getting the order to go hold this NDP with a known "gay." The teasing, ribbing, and overall ripping of the straight who was forced to be alone anywhere with this guy would be justification for gunplay.

And no, I don't want his blood and I sure as hell don't want mouth-to-mouth resuscitation from this guy.

Give me a break, and instead, let me die.



reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 04:54 PM by StevenDye
reply to post by dooper



His blood is no different to your blood.

I watched a documentary the other day where a single woman and a group of men were on a plane together, they barely even talked to eachother.

Let me ask you this, does every single last woman in the world 'turn you on'. Hopefully, if you are like most of us, you will say no. Well the same is true for homosexual members, they arn't turned on by every single man in the world....is that so hard to understand?

I would think people fighting and protecting eachothers lives would be able to overcome if someone is gay for a few minutes in a shower... if the man starts to touch them etc then that is different. But if he has a shower it should make no difference at all.

Any man who cannot accept this isn't mature enough to be holding a gun in my opinion...


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 04:57 PM by StevenDye
reply to post by jerico65



Woah...having a disease is different, you do realise straight men catch diseases too right?

You also don't have to be gay to get AIDS....a few needles here and there.


All servicemen should be tested before being shipped out, if there is any disease they should not be able to give blood. There shouldn't be any sexual contact of any sort whilst out fighting, between anyone...

[edit on 15-1-2009 by StevenDye]


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 05:08 PM by secretagent woooman
reply to post by MikeboydUS


The point of ending it was to eliminate discriminatory hiring/promotion which was an accidental by-product of the law, and to make it easier to prosecute others who harmed or killed a gay serviceman. It's much easier to prove when a commanding officer cannot deny knowledge that a
soldier didn't "disclose" sexual preference. Fragging seems to have become more popular in recent years, I can see why they want to go after people.


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 05:08 PM by secretagent woooman
reply to post by MikeboydUS


The point of ending it was to eliminate discriminatory hiring/promotion which was an accidental by-product of the law, and to make it easier to prosecute others who harmed or killed a gay serviceman. It's much easier to prove when a commanding officer cannot deny knowledge that a
soldier didn't "disclose" sexual preference. Fragging seems to have become more popular in recent years, I can see why they want to go after people.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 109 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 11 hours ago, 95 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 9 hours ago, 62 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 hours ago, 50 replies