What's new
By:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially history!!

KrazeeEyezKilla said:
exactly. if you had simply said this all along, nobody would have questioned you.

they choose, and the rest of us, as human beings, should be tolerant and i would take it a step further and say supportive of their quest for what is nothing more than true happiness. after all, isn't that what we all want in life?
Click to expand...

i never said i hate gays or they should not be gay.
i said gays should not be in the army.
so someone replied by back in the day african americans were not allowed in the army
so i came back with being african american isnt a choice being gay is. i also stated i would be okay to grab a beer with a gay person, chill or relax with a gay person. but i would not go to war with one. because imho they are Weak(maybe its not the correct word. weak minded, mentally unstable or whatever). i just have a feeling i am misunderstood

if you chose to be gay power to you. just dont be a wus and blame it on genetics. if you choose to be an alcoholic dont blame it on it being a disease admit you are weak and lack self controll.

if i offended certain people allong the way, i'm sorry(yes katie i am sorry if i offended you). i received an infraction already because of this thread.
 
Stickler said:
This message is to Dutch. I just received your neg rep. Yes, I know you can't prove it. There is no need to say, "I can't prove it." That is all.
Click to expand...

okay maybe w can have that discussion another day/thread/pm. it's just one theory about the jfk assasination. to me it seems the most logical theory. there are a lot of theorys on jfks assisnation
 
834020_1241_625x1000.jpg
 
but why should gays not be in the military?

they have higher iq's than heterosexuals in every study i've seen.
they seem to frequent the gym and therefore be in better shape than your average heterosexual.
they're use to adverse conditions having had to live gay.
as another poster said, we've gotten by just fine with a co-ed workforce.

sorry, i wanted to go all dutch in style there. minus the numerous misspellings and grammatical errors that one usually finds in someone who's weaker-minded.
 
also one thing this might bring forth is something like affirmitave action.
when say a corporation has 2 many white people. and there is a new job opening so lets say a white guy comes in has far better qualification than the black person. because of affirmitave action the guy with less qualifications gets the job. thats just WRONG right.

now lats translate this to the army.
if certain units for example the navy seals, the delta force and maybe the amrines. have STRICT qualifications. so in the next 5 years no gays will be in those units. will the army be forced to lower the qualifications for gays, maybe, maybe not. lets hope not but with the stupidity of politicians you never know cus lifes are at stake in the army.
 
DutchJazzer said:
also one thing this might bring forth is something like affirmitave action.
when say a corporation has 2 many white people. and there is a new job opening so lets say a white guy comes in has far better qualification than the black person. because of affirmitave action the guy with less qualifications gets the job. thats just WRONG right.

now lats translate this to the army.
if certain units for example the navy seals, the delta force and maybe the amrines. have STRICT qualifications. so in the next 5 years no gays will be in those units. will the army be forced to lower the qualifications for gays, maybe, maybe not. lets hope not but with the stupidity of politicians you never know cus lifes are at stake in the army.
Click to expand...

1emebig.jpg
 
DutchJazzer said:
also one thing this might bring forth is something like affirmitave action.
when say a corporation has 2 many white people. and there is a new job opening so lets say a white guy comes in has far better qualification than the black person. because of affirmitave action the guy with less qualifications gets the job. thats just WRONG right.

now lats translate this to the army.
if certain units for example the navy seals, the delta force and maybe the amrines. have STRICT qualifications. so in the next 5 years no gays will be in those units. will the army be forced to lower the qualifications for gays, maybe, maybe not. lets hope not but with the stupidity of politicians you never know cus lifes are at stake in the army.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't really get it. Are you saying gay guys are less phsyically fit than straight guys? Because in general, that has not been my experience.
 
DutchJazzer said:
also one thing this might bring forth is something like affirmitave action.
when say a corporation has 2 many white people. and there is a new job opening so lets say a white guy comes in has far better qualification than the black person. because of affirmitave action the guy with less qualifications gets the job. thats just WRONG right.

now lats translate this to the army.
if certain units for example the navy seals, the delta force and maybe the amrines. have STRICT qualifications. so in the next 5 years no gays will be in those units. will the army be forced to lower the qualifications for gays, maybe, maybe not. lets hope not but with the stupidity of politicians you never know cus lifes are at stake in the army.
Click to expand...

Interesting question, actually. The answer is going to be "no." The only thing the army segregates on (and, other people, correct me if I'm wrong) is between male and female basic training. The army's requirements for various physical activities are higher for men (i.e., doing more pull-ups in 5 minutes, running a mile faster, etc.). Someone earlier in the thread pointed out, however, that women are rarely let into front-line infantry units, meaning the bulk of our actual fighters are still men. Gay or straight, a man is a man and sexual dimorphism still applies.
 
KrazeeEyezKilla said:
but why should gays not be in the military?

they have higher iq's than heterosexuals in every study i've seen.
Click to expand...
in the army iq isnt really that important follwing orders is:P.

KrazeeEyezKilla said:
they seem to frequent the gym and therefore be in better shape than your average heterosexual.
Click to expand...
frequenting a gym doesnt make you strong there is a misconception in this wolrd that a muscular guy knows how to fight and is stronger than say a skinny dude. maybe the muscular guy can benc press a gazzilion pounds while the skinny one cant. but in a fight it's a different story. so frequenting a gym makes you strong in one way but does not mean your strong in antoher. hope i am stating this with the correct use of words

they're use to adverse conditions having had to live gay.


KrazeeEyezKilla said:
as another poster said, we've gotten by just fine with a co-ed workforce.
Click to expand...
yeah workforce so?

KrazeeEyezKilla said:
sorry, i wanted to go all dutch in style there. minus the numerous misspellings and grammatical errors that one usually finds in someone who's weaker-minded.
Click to expand...
i'm honored to receive this tribute
 
It's entirely clear, by the way, that the CIA killed Kennedy. Somebody start a thread so we can talk about this.
 
One thing I want to clear up. The repeal of DADT only applies to the LGB portion of the LGBT population. It does nothing to remove the ban on transgender people serving openly in the military. That is a battle that will be fought. I can tell you from the small group of transgender people I know here locally, that a high percentage served in the military.
 
Stickler said:
Again, I don't really get it. Are you saying gay guys are less phsyically fit than straight guys? Because in general, that has not been my experience.
Click to expand...

How many gay fighters do you know. and i mean not physically fit he can run 5 miles without breaking a sweat i see those everyday. but when it comes to fighting i have yet to meet one. only know of one the guy who was on on of the season of the ultimate fighter nick ring. who is undefeated but there are rumors floating around that it was an act. to be "special" on that show
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top