Study: Gays Don't Harm Unit Cohesion

Horned Toad · Post by **Horned Toad** » July 18th, 2008, 10:35 am

So armpits are OK?

ANGRYCivilian · Post by **ANGRYCivilian** » July 18th, 2008, 10:41 am

Does no one think that the image of our Military will be harmed by openly declaring that we allow gays to serve?

If I served with a gay person, I was unaware of it. I have never known a gay person that I encountered/communicated with/worked with on a daily basis. My experience with gay people is not much, I've seen people that I was pretty sure were gay, but have never really had any interaction with them that I am aware of.

I did learn to clean my house, take a shower, brush my teeth, wear deodorant and underwear, eat cooked food, match and wear and clean my clothes from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Thanks Carson, you're my gay hero!

BruteForce · Post by **BruteForce** » July 18th, 2008, 10:42 am

Ranger Luna wrote: va=sodomy
One entry found.

:D :D And that should be an EXIT, not an entry!

BruteForce · Post by **BruteForce** » July 18th, 2008, 10:47 am

Silverback wrote: So the Army's selecting and maintaining of personnel should be based on your personal preferences?

Sounds good to me! :D

A standard needs to be defined, then maintained. At present, it's "Don't ask, Don't Tell", but it's not being actively and/or fully enforced.

Bear in mind that I indicated that I have no objection to homosexuals serving, provided their orientation is not flaunted.

Your preference on this subject is what?

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » July 18th, 2008, 10:54 am

BruteForce wrote:
Silverback wrote: So the Army's selecting and maintaining of personnel should be based on your personal preferences?
Sounds good to me! :D

A standard needs to be defined, then maintained. At present, it's "Don't ask, Don't Tell", but it's not being actively and/or fully enforced.

Bear in mind that I indicated that I have no objection to homosexuals serving, provided their orientation is not flaunted.

Your preference on this subject is what?

I prefer to argue

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » July 18th, 2008, 11:02 am

Silverback wrote:
BruteForce wrote:
Silverback wrote: So the Army's selecting and maintaining of personnel should be based on your personal preferences?
Sounds good to me! :D

A standard needs to be defined, then maintained. At present, it's "Don't ask, Don't Tell", but it's not being actively and/or fully enforced.

Bear in mind that I indicated that I have no objection to homosexuals serving, provided their orientation is not flaunted.

Your preference on this subject is what?
I prefer to argue

But seriously, Anyone who thinks they haven't served with a homosexual is blind and or stupid! Whether or not DADT is a successful policy remains to be seen. I know that if you make this a Biblical (or moral) argument be prepared to be held to an equal standard.

On the average day I don't think about Homosexuals. I am fortunate enough in my life to have very few and very simple problems.

Bottom line is: They (Homosexuals) are serving and will continue to serve their nation.

PocketKings · Post by **PocketKings** » July 18th, 2008, 11:26 am

Yea, I think very little on homosexuals as well. I just feel pissy and argumentative today. Had the energy (and money) spent arguing over this topic gone into fighting radical Islam we'd be in a much better place as a nation. It's more of a distraction to me than a legitimate concern.

BruteForce · Post by **BruteForce** » July 18th, 2008, 11:39 am

Silverback wrote:Bottom line is: They (Homosexuals) are serving and will continue to serve their nation.

Concur. I'd add that I'd prefer to not see them engaging in any homosexually oriented activities and maintain professionalism and discipline at all times (as I'm sure the majority serving currently do).

I'd also agree that on a moral plain, my argument would be different as well.

ANGRYCivilian · Post by **ANGRYCivilian** » July 18th, 2008, 2:11 pm

ANGRYCivilian wrote:Does no one think that the image of our Military will be harmed by openly declaring that we allow gays to serve?

If I served with a gay person, I was unaware of it. I have never known a gay person that I encountered/communicated with/worked with on a daily basis. My experience with gay people is not much, I've seen people that I was pretty sure were gay, but have never really had any interaction with them that I am aware of.

I did learn to clean my house, take a shower, brush my teeth, wear deodorant and underwear, eat cooked food, match and wear and clean my clothes from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Thanks Carson, you're my gay hero!

I had to end my post before I got to the point. What I was getting at is I don't know if I served with gay Soldiers, so I don't really know how well they do their jobs, etc. My opinion is entirely speculation; I don't have any first, or even third-hand experience in this area.

I have to say, the older I get, the more...I don't think tolerant is the right word...maybe I just don't care what other people do, as long as they don't bother me. I am curious to see if allowing gays to openly...well, be gay...has any real impact on our Military.

Oh, can we stop using the word 'sodomy'? I feel dirty just reading the word; besides, every one of us has received a blowjob, and most of us have probably had anal sex with our girlfriend(s)/wife(s) at least once. Besides, if it was bad, porn would label it as sodomy, instead of anal.

rgrjoe175 · Post by **rgrjoe175** » July 18th, 2008, 2:44 pm

[quote="ANGRYCivilian] Oh, can we stop using the word 'sodomy'? I feel dirty just reading the word; l.[/quote]

So what?

Parabellum · Post by **Parabellum** » July 18th, 2008, 2:55 pm

As long as you are bangin' a dude to prove dominance it isn't gay.

Oh yeah...you can't cum either.

Looon · Post by **Looon** » July 18th, 2008, 4:03 pm

Parabellum wrote:As long as you are bangin' a dude to prove dominance it isn't gay.

Oh yeah...you can't cum either.

You sick fuck.

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » July 18th, 2008, 4:25 pm

Parabellum wrote:As long as you are bangin' a dude to prove dominance it isn't gay.

Oh yeah...you can't cum much.

JohnDowland · Post by **JohnDowland** » July 18th, 2008, 5:57 pm

RangerX wrote:
JohnDowland wrote: Not only should homosexuality be banned ....as a moral perversion
You write this as if it were some sort of lifestyle choice (which for some it is). However, please explain homosexual behavior in animals such as horses, dolphins & chimpanzees, all animals which have been observed practicing homosexuality, where there is no moral standard.

For those of us who no longer serve, it is a worthless exercise to debate, as it is really up to those currently in service as to whether gays should be allowed to serve. Their decision to allow this is not something that should be instilled by their service, but rather by their upbringing.

I'm not sure how I missed the last three pages of this thread as I usually get a "watched topic" notification on my email account. The server was just being gay I guess...

Anyway, the animal issue is not a problem for me as I believe in original sin and the effects of the fall upon all of creation to include a corrupting of the divinely set moral order of both man and beast. Asserting that there is no moral standard for animal behavior assumes that there never existed a pre-fall world where animals had a divinely given order to their behavior. I may be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that same sex penetration would have been part of that God given pre-fall order.

The above comment may stir up a hornets nest, but it is a large subject to discuss, so any continuation of it should probably branch out to the formation of another thread. I will not have time to wage long Internet battle personally, as my schedule is a bit cramped right now. However, if I get all my reams of paperwork together and pass the accessions board this coming late September, I can have a Chaplain's excuse for knocking out some theological discussion (and you can call me 'sir'

). Oh yeah, going back to get my tab after twelve years is still number one on the list of unfinished business to be accomplished for this aging 33 year-old body (talk about the empirical effects of the fall).

Chiron · Post by **Chiron** » July 21st, 2008, 3:28 am

The military is not a â€œdemocracyâ€