UK Gays Serve in Military With Little Fuss

[Ordie]

If one of the oldest professional Army in the world allows Gays, it only a matter of time for the US to follow.


Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur

New York Times

LONDON, May 20 — The officer, a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force, felt he had no choice. So he stood up in front of his squad of 30 to 40 people.
“I said, ‘Right, I’ve got something to tell you,’ ” he said. “ ‘I believe that for us to be able to work closely together and have faith in each other, we have to be honest and open and frank. And it has to be a two-way process, and it starts with me baring my soul. You may have heard some rumors, and yes, I have a long-term partner who is a he, not a she.’ ”
Far from causing problems, he said, he found that coming out to his troops actually increased the unit’s strength and cohesion. He had felt uneasy keeping the secret “that their boss was a poof,” as he put it, from people he worked with so closely.
Since the British military began allowing homo******s to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.
The Ministry of Defense does not compile figures on how many gay men and lesbians are openly serving, and it says that the number of people who have come out publicly in the past seven years is still relatively low. But it is clearly proud of how smoothly homo******s have been integrated and is trying to make life easier for them.
“What we’re hoping to do is to, over a period of time, reinforce the message that people who are gay, lesbian and the like are welcomed in the armed forces and we don’t discriminate against them in any way,” a Defense Ministry official said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with the ministry’s practice.
Nonetheless, the issue is extremely delicate now. The military does not want to be seen bragging about the success of its policy when the issue can still cause so much anguished debate in the United States. This is particularly true in light of tensions between the allies after a British coroner ruled in March that a British soldier who died four years ago was unlawfully killed by an American pilot.
For this article, the Defense Ministry refused to give permission for any member of the forces to be interviewed, either on or off the record. Those who spoke did so before the ministry made its position clear.
“We’re not looking to have quotes taken out of context in a way to imply that we’re trying to influence the debate in the United States,” the British official said. “There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we’ve handled it and how it’s gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.”
The debate in the United States was rekindled in March when Gen. Peter Pace, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/j/joint_chiefs_of_staff/index.html?inline=nyt-org) is the country’s top-ranking military official, told The Chicago Tribune that he believed that homo******ity was immoral.
In January, Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who until his retirement in 1997 held the same post in the Clinton years, when the Pentagon adopted its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, said in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times that he now believed that the military was ready to accept gay men and lesbians. A military already stretched thin, he said, “must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”
At least 24 countries — many of them allies of the United States, and some of them members of the coalition forces fighting alongside Americans — now allow gay soldiers to serve openly in their armed forces.
It is hard to avoid comparing the British and American systems, gay soldiers in the British forces say.
One major, an openly gay liaison officer in the British Territorial Army, told of an exchange he had in the southern Iraq city of Basra with an American staff sergeant, far from home and eager to confide.
“He privately let me know he was gay,” the major said in an interview. “Not in a romantic way, but in a matter-of-fact way. He found it difficult, because he clearly had a whole part of his private life that he had to keep separate and distinct and couldn’t discuss with people. He was in his mid-30s, with no girlfriend and no wife, and he had to use all these white lies.”
Some Britons said they could not understand why the United States had not changed its policy.
“I find it strange, coming from the land of the free and freedom of speech and democracy, given the changes in the world attitude,” said the gay squadron leader, who recently returned from Afghanistan. “It’s just not the issue it used to be.”
Until its policy changed, the British military had deep misgivings about allowing homo******s to serve openly in its armed forces. But it had no choice. It was forced to by a European court, which ruled that its policy of excluding homo******s violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
“There was a lot of apprehension among some senior personnel that there would be an increase in things like bullying and harassment based on ****** orientation, and some of them were almost predicting that the world was going to come to an end,” the Defense Ministry official said.
Similar concerns were raised when, bowing to national antidiscrimination laws, the military began allowing gay personnel who had registered for civil partnerships to live in military housing with their same-*** partners. “But all the problems the services thought were going to come to pass really haven’t materialized,” the official said.
To the extent it becomes an issue, it is usually within the context of the relentlessly rough give-and-take that characterizes military life, particularly at the lower ranks, said Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_california/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Santa Barbara, who has studied the British experience.
“The military is a proving ground, and the first thing people do is find your weakness and exploit it,” Mr. Frank said in an e-mail interview. “If you’re gay, that’s your weakness, and guys will latch on to that. But frequently this is no more significant a weakness than any other based on your accent, body type, race, religion, etc.”
The British military actively recruits gay men and lesbians and punishes any instance of intolerance or bullying. The Royal Navy advertises for recruits in gay magazines and has allowed gay sailors to hold civil partnership ceremonies on board ships and, last summer, to march in full naval uniform at a gay pride rally in London. (British Army and Royal Air Force personnel could march but had to wear civilian clothes.)
Speaking at a conference sponsored by the gay advocacy group Stonewall last year, Vice Adm. Adrian Johns, the second sea lord, said that homo******s had always served in the military but in the past had had to do it secretly.
“That’s an unhealthy way to be, to try and keep a secret life in the armed services,” said Admiral Johns, who as the Royal Navy’s principal personnel officer is responsible for about 39,000 sailors. His speech was titled “Reaping the Rewards of a Gay-Friendly Workplace.”
“Those individuals need nurturing, so that they give of their best and are, in turn, rewarded for their effort,” he said of the Royal Navy’s gay men and lesbians. “Nurture includes the freedom to be themselves. Our mission is to break down barriers of discrimination, prejudice, fear and misunderstanding.”
Once the news is out there, the gay Royal Air Force squadron leader said, the issue gets subsumed by the job at hand and by the relentless immediacy of war.
At one point, his squad was working with a British Army unit. “I wouldn’t go into a briefing room and face them and say, ‘By the way, I’m gay,’ ” he said of his British Army counterparts. “Frankly, I don’t think they were worried, because we were all focused on doing a very, very hard job.”
He recalled something his commander had said, when advising him to come out to his squad:
“The boss said, ‘I think you will be surprised that in this day and age it will be a complete anticlimax, because as far as I’m concerned, homo******s in the military are yesterday’s news.’ ”

[H3]

homo******s in the military are yesterday’s news........................

As stated on the very last line .

[kazbitch]

to be honest as long as they fight like any other trooper who cares if they are gay , straight or bi******.

*off topic* why has my avatar been removed?!

ahhh half naked women nsfw, a pm would do............

[N-G-F-O]

I personally have no problem with homo******s or lesbians serving and fighting alongside me... just as long as they're not behind me.p-)
Seriously though, it's been like this for years and is no big deal anymore. I recall a really good mate of mine (a club-swinger) who whilst we were all out on the piss dressed as women (save it, i know...) decided to tell us he was gay. Fair shout. We all bought him a drink and got on with the rest of our night. He deserved alot of respect for having the nads to flat-out tell 15 green-lids he batted for the other team.
The general consensus was: "and? so? Get the wets in then ya big puff"
They are our absolute equals, the same as us, no different and should be treated as such.

[jango]

My father who is now retired was a high ranking army officer with over 24 years service. And he said that the best warrant officer he ever knew was a lesbian.

Everyone knew that she was a lesbian but diden't care as long as she respected their lifestyle and they did the same.

[D-gin]

Old debate, but here's my .2cents.

In my experience as a civilian I've been fortunate enough to have straight friends that wouldn't lift a finger to back me up when I needed help and I've had homo****** friends that would always be their when needed.

Bottom line IMHO, It has to do with the person and not there ****** orientation....I would rather have a gay person that I know wouldn't run when the crap hit the fan over a straight person that might run the other way.

[Calanen]

It doesn't matter to me. As long as people do their jobs and dont expect special treatment because they are gay, who cares who they sleep with. Man whatever your thing is outside of hours, I could care less. Its only when people of whatever minority group wear it as a badge of honour and dare people to conflict with them and then play the gay card, or the race card, or the *** card that ticks me off.

[oldsoak]

It doesn't matter to me. As long as people do their jobs and dont expect special treatment because they are gay, who cares who they sleep with. Man whatever your thing is outside of hours, I could care less. Its only when people of whatever minority group wear it as a badge of honour and dare people to conflict with them and then play the gay card, or the race card, or the *** card that ticks me off.

Couldnt agree more. So long as they dont want to involve me in their spare time or prejudice discipline, wgaf ?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

If one of the oldest professional Army in the world allows Gays, it only a matter of time for the US to follow.


That's a rather specious argument. One could use the same logic to claim that what happened to British military power must inevitably happen to US military power. And I don't buy that either.


Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the notion of automatic European superiority. Simply because they decide to do something is no indication that we should follow. Nothing against them, but we did, after all, leave Europe for a reason. They are not us, and we are not them.

I would argue that a nation's or a military's age has nothing at all to do with the wisdom of allowing homo******s to openly serve. Instead, that decision is based upon the social norms that exist in it's society. And American society is not European society.

The argument here is not whether gays may serve (gays have always, and currently do serve in the US military) - the question is whether or not they may openly serve. Until we are comfortable with homo******s openly posturing, practicing their mating rituals the way heteros do (and they do - it simply seems invisible to us since it is so common and accepted), it shouldn't happen.

[Weasel]

The argument here is not whether gays may serve (gays have always, and currently do serve in the US military) - the question is whether or not they may openly serve. Until we are comfortable with homo******s openly posturing, practicing their mating rituals the way heteros do (and they do - it simply seems invisible to us since it is so common and accepted), it shouldn't happen.

One question for my understanding: What does "serve openly" mean for you? Where in everyday army life do you note if somebody is gay or straight???

[Swedish_Marine]

Serving openly probobly means that you don´t hide your ****** orientation.

[Weasel]

And where/when do you hide/show your ****** orientation? When I joined the army I was busy with shooting, obstacle courses, drills and other military stuff but I wasn´t confronted with any ****** orientations of others.

[Jobu]

As a civilian I don't care who serves to protect my ass as long as it's done as well as can be.

[Swedish_Marine]

"And where/when do you hide/show your ****** orientation?"

Yeah, that´s what I´d like to know too. Can´t immagine how it would be if the entire world was gay and I was secretly straight and couldn´t tell anyone, let alone stick it into that hot chick in the next platoon without getting discharged, or having a wank to a picture of Salma Hayek.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Serving openly probobly means that you don´t hide your ****** orientation.

Well exactly - and more than just not hiding it, but the ability to advertise and pursue it. As I said in the other recent very special gay thread - there is plenty of posturing, flirting, and general gettin' down going on with straight troops. I was following in Wilt Chamberlain's footsteps myself (ok maybe not quite that many) when I finally found one to marry. My friends all did the same - service members humping each other all the live long day. I boned everything from E-1's up to senior NCO's - even the CE Squadron commander's daughter - who, while not being in the military, was still a Colonel's daughter, so she sorta counts. That's serving openly.

If gays served openly, they'd be doing exactly the same. That's just fine of course - but I'm of the opinion that neither our society nor the military in particular would be OK with that. They'd be dancing together at the enlisted and NCO club. They'd be making out during slow dances. They'd be going to each other's rooms. They'd walk hand-in-hand at the PX. They'd be soliciting anybody they found attractive - it's just what people do. It's how my kids got here - how we all got here (well, except that our parents were, y'know, biologically able to propagate the species).

As proof of concept - wasn't there a story running around about the HMS Cornwall (ship involved in the Iranian hostage taking) being involved in some kind of lesbian assault case? What are the odds? My guess is that open gayness - even in forces of the UK is far more of a politically protected activity than we are led to believe.

[Swedish_Marine]

Honestly, would you try to pick up a girl that you knew was openly a lesbian? I wouldn´t, even if she was attractive because I´d know there´s no chance in hell I´d get it on with her. I see your point, make no mistake about it, but I honestly don´t think that gay men would try to hump every man in sight.

[Jobu]

Honestly, would you try to pick up a girl that you knew was openly a lesbian? I wouldn´t, even if she was attractive because I´d know there´s no chance in hell I´d get it on with her. I

I'd try to convert her or at least get her to let me watch.

[velvet-cream]

I guess it's the usual US military thing. They're suppose to fight for and protect democracy, freedom and liberty - not practice it.

[Hollis]

I guess it's the usual US military thing. They're suppose to fight for and protect democracy, freedom and liberty - not practice it.


The US Military is not in the *** business, Your watching too many Demi Moore movies.

[EsoognomEhT]

I would argue that a nation's or a military's age has nothing at all to do with the wisdom of allowing homo******s to openly serve.

Er, I think most people would argue that too

[Crassus]

Well exactly - and more than just not hiding it, but the ability to advertise and pursue it. As I said in the other recent very special gay thread - there is plenty of posturing, flirting, and general gettin' down going on with straight troops. I was following in Wilt Chamberlain's footsteps myself (ok maybe not quite that many) when I finally found one to marry. My friends all did the same - service members humping each other all the live long day. I boned everything from E-1's up to senior NCO's - even the CE Squadron commander's daughter - who, while not being in the military, was still a Colonel's daughter, so she sorta counts. That's serving openly.

Errh...

Well, when I did my time I was not so interested in who did what with whom.

Perhaps it was just a question of taste by what I mean being POLITE.

[Hydro]

One question for my understanding: What does "serve openly" mean for you? Where in everyday army life do you note if somebody is gay or straight???



It's actually quite easy. You bring the Pl/Coy/Bn to attention, then bring them to Open Order. You accompany the CO and the RSM up and down the ranks, and simply note those who are wearing spangled flares, and those who are not.

[Kaplanr]

Well exactly - and more than just not hiding it, but the ability to advertise and pursue it. As I said in the other recent very special gay thread - there is plenty of posturing, flirting, and general gettin' down going on with straight troops. I was following in Wilt Chamberlain's footsteps myself (ok maybe not quite that many) when I finally found one to marry. My friends all did the same - service members humping each other all the live long day. I boned everything from E-1's up to senior NCO's - even the CE Squadron commander's daughter - who, while not being in the military, was still a Colonel's daughter, so she sorta counts. That's serving openly.

If gays served openly, they'd be doing exactly the same. That's just fine of course - but I'm of the opinion that neither our society nor the military in particular would be OK with that. They'd be dancing together at the enlisted and NCO club. They'd be making out during slow dances. They'd be going to each other's rooms. They'd walk hand-in-hand at the PX. They'd be soliciting anybody they found attractive - it's just what people do. It's how my kids got here - how we all got here (well, except that our parents were, y'know, biologically able to propagate the species).

As proof of concept - wasn't there a story running around about the HMS Cornwall (ship involved in the Iranian hostage taking) being involved in some kind of lesbian assault case? What are the odds? My guess is that open gayness - even in forces of the UK is far more of a politically protected activity than we are led to believe.

2 Sheds, As usual your agruments are well presented and on the mark. Let's get to the truth then. The issue isn't about unit cohesion or relying on your budy or any of the band-aid answer that both military and civilian types put on it. The real reason is that someone, we, whomever don't feel that the American public is ready (apologies to Jack Nicholson) "stand the truth." American society or at least a vocal part of it can't acknowledge that there is homo******ity in the public midst, and that it is likely represented in most areas of public life in proportion to its relative numbers in the population.

What I find amusing, as it where, is that a conservative homo****** has more in common (besides ****** preference) with a hetero conservative than he/she does with a liberal gay person. In my experience in the IDF, gays didn't even make it to the list of who or what you didn't want to rely on or serve with. Assholes (no innuendo intended) know no ****** preferences.)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Honestly, would you try to pick up a girl that you knew was openly a lesbian?

Maybe. Maybe not. But surely you recognize that many people fall into the wonderful ******ly ambiguous netherworld between gay and straight...i.e. playing for both teams. So who knows - you can't get a decent 3 way without, well, y'know, somebody pinch hitting to some extent.

You have however, raised an interesting idea. People engaged in this argument really can't have it both ways. Either openly serving gays would be just like us, or they wouldn't. Either they would keep it to themselves and nobody would know (and people would recruit from the wrong team), or they would have to demonstrate/advertise their gayness so that people would know. And if they did that, then they would not be acting just like us. Part of my argument against is that I don't think we would tolerate military folks advertising their gayness the way we traditionally focus on advertising our straightness.



I see your point, make no mistake about it, but I honestly don´t think that gay men would try to hump every man in sight.

Of course not, but they would try to hump some, just like every straight man does, right? And just like every straight and gay woman does. That's what "open" is all about. Hey, if the US military was comprised only of people from Amsterdam and Manhattan I wouldn't see a problem here. But we've got lots of people who's values are completely on the other side of the spectrum.

[velvet-cream]

The US Military is not in the *** business, Your watching too many Demi Moore movies.

Haha!! :)

[Lt. James Anderson]

If one of the oldest professional Army in the world allows Gays, it only a matter of time for the US to follow.

[B]

Really?
Different country, different army ...
I don't give a fcuk what they do ...

We had a couple conversations about that very thing with some Brits in Afghanistan that didn't go too well ...

[Ordie]

Gays in the US military will be moot within 5 years for a simple reason.

Baby boomers.

As the baby boomers start to retire, federal, state, and local agencies will be scrambling for new hires. I forgot, throw in the 50K new Border Patrol Agents jobs. And then you have the perfect storm for recruiters.

Each governmental agency including the military will try entice potential recruits not only in salary and benefits, but working environment as well.

If I were an openly gay Arab linguist, which one will I choose?

the Army with anti-gay policy?
or
the FBI which prohibits discriminating against gays and lesbians?

In the end, the Army will recognize that its don't ask don't tell policy is counterproductive in getting talented people into its ranks.

[loganinkosovo]

I was very happy NOT to have to introduce this as my Squad.......

http://www.officialvillagepeople.com/Pictures/interview.jpg

[Lt. James Anderson]

In the end, the Army will recognize that its don't ask don't tell policy is counterproductive in getting talented people into its ranks.

talented people = fagz ?
I don't care how talented they are ... that will only degrade our combat efficiency.
It will not go well with combat units ...

In my old unit to start some gay BS when everybody is drunk would be a sure way to get yourself killed.

[Ordie]

talented people = fagz ?
I don't care how talented they are ... that will only degrade our combat efficiency.
It will not go well with combat units ...

In my old unit to start some gay BS when everybody is drunk would be a sure way to get yourself killed.


"I dont give a damn about the color of your skin,
just kill as many sons of bitches wearing green as you can."
- Attributed to Patton

[martinexsquaddie]

well its not a problem in the Britsh army and there engaged in combats ops in Afghanistan and Iraq

[velvet-cream]

Gays in the US military will be moot within 5 years for a simple reason.

Baby boomers.

As the baby boomers start to retire, federal, state, and local agencies will be scrambling for new hires. I forgot, throw in the 50K new Border Patrol Agents jobs. And then you have the perfect storm for recruiters.

Each governmental agency including the military will try entice potential recruits not only in salary and benefits, but working environment as well.

If I were an openly gay Arab linguist, which one will I choose?

the Army with anti-gay policy?
or
the FBI which prohibits discriminating against gays and lesbians?

In the end, the Army will recognize that its don't ask don't tell policy is counterproductive in getting talented people into its ranks.

I think the anti-gay policy would die out with the next generation too.

Over here, only the grey hairs would make the off comment about homo******s. The younger generation don't really give a rats arse. We grew up in a cosmopolitan society where gays and lesbians were part of the community. And as individuals we feel comfortable enough with our own ******ity not to feel uncomfortable with having homo******s in the ranks.

It's a lot better to allow service members to openly reveal their ****** orientation.
Picture the 2 scenarios:

1. Open policy - Gays and Lesbians are free to let other members know of their ****** orientation. If you let a gay member know that you are straight, they will respect that and not make "passes" at you.

2. Closed policy - Gays and Lesbians are not encouraged to openly talk about their ****** orientation. In this case, both "gay" and "straight" service members will be guessing on who is gay and who isn't. And there would probably be more instances of a "gay" mistakenly making moves on a "straight" member who he thought was "gay".

[Sabre]

It doesn't matter to me. As long as people do their jobs and dont expect special treatment because they are gay, who cares who they sleep with. Man whatever your thing is outside of hours, I could care less. Its only when people of whatever minority group wear it as a badge of honour and dare people to conflict with them and then play the gay card, or the race card, or the *** card that ticks me off.

Bingo mate. Spot on.

The only thing that irked me about the article (and it annoyed me at the time) was that RN personnel could attend a gay pride march IN UNIFORM. Now, just as Army and RAF personnel could attend in civvies, so in their own time, not affiliated with the military, then so should the RN. However, attending any event in uniform, be it gay pride or the Lower Wallopton Budgie Fanciers annual meet, automatically links it to the military. Serving personnel should realise that their uniform is not their personal identity, it is the identity of the whole of the service, past present and future. It is not their choice to associate it with whatever cause they feel. It's a shame that the RN/MoD decided to let them.

On a personal note, gay pride parades really annoy me. As do things like the MOBOs or other minority events. There are no 'majority events', even attempting to have a 'Music of White Origin' award would be met with outrage. My view is just as Calanen put it, do what you want in your own time, just don't wear it as a badge.


Well exactly - and more than just not hiding it, but the ability to advertise and pursue it. As I said in the other recent very special gay thread - there is plenty of posturing, flirting, and general gettin' down going on with straight troops. I was following in Wilt Chamberlain's footsteps myself (ok maybe not quite that many) when I finally found one to marry. My friends all did the same - service members humping each other all the live long day. I boned everything from E-1's up to senior NCO's - even the CE Squadron commander's daughter - who, while not being in the military, was still a Colonel's daughter, so she sorta counts. That's serving openly.

If gays served openly, they'd be doing exactly the same. That's just fine of course - but I'm of the opinion that neither our society nor the military in particular would be OK with that. They'd be dancing together at the enlisted and NCO club. They'd be making out during slow dances. They'd be going to each other's rooms. They'd walk hand-in-hand at the PX. They'd be soliciting anybody they found attractive - it's just what people do. It's how my kids got here - how we all got here (well, except that our parents were, y'know, biologically able to propagate the species).

As proof of concept - wasn't there a story running around about the HMS Cornwall (ship involved in the Iranian hostage taking) being involved in some kind of lesbian assault case? What are the odds? My guess is that open gayness - even in forces of the UK is far more of a politically protected activity than we are led to believe.

I see your point there mate, but I think you're over-emphasising the 'gayness'.

The UK's armed forces are small, some people do 'get it on' as you put it with other service personnel, but there are distinct rules and regs about doing so with people within your CoC. You'll find that people are fairly discrete about it (I'm talking hetero here). In the same way, gay personnel are not about to rub peoples' faces in it. To serve openly means that people like the Officer in the article can point out that elephant in the room (no matter how pink it is!) and make it a non-issue. This will stop people like him ending up like that US officer (who must have been doing an acceptable job to be still serving) and having to lie or worry about being kicked out of their ideal job if they were found out. Of course, people can still keep their ******ity to themselves or to their closest mates if they so choose. Generally though, who cares? If Pte Dover B. happens to be a bender and brings his bloke to the unit function, some people might say something and they might get filled in for it. It depends on how well appreciated he is and whether his mates will look out for him. Squaddies will fight over pretty much any thing, what's one more reason?

[velvet-cream]

yeah, the uniform things is bad juju. Personally, I don't think you should be wearing uniform unless you are on duty, or commuting between work and home.

Gay pride marches have a political connotation to them. The uniform and political issues shouldn't mix.

A person shouldn't be wearing uniform for a personal gay pride parade just like they shouldn't be wearing the uniform during a casual Sunday afternoon BBQ .

[Sabre]

Yeah, that's just a side issue that annoyed me.

As far as the operational effectiveness issue is concerned, Paddy Mayne was reportedly a bender. Didn't stop him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Mayne

[Chaosmarine1]

talented people = fagz ?
I don't care how talented they are ... that will only degrade our combat efficiency.
It will not go well with combat units ...

In my old unit to start some gay BS when everybody is drunk would be a sure way to get yourself killed.

Not really a bright bunch, your old unit huh?

[Lt. James Anderson]

Not really a bright bunch, your old unit huh?

The coolest people ever ...
It would make it interesting if you said that to their face (or my face) ...
like having your head banged against the concrete ... Oh it happened on more that a few occasions ... LOL

[Chaosmarine1]

The coolest people ever ...
It would make it interesting if you said that to their face (or my face) ...
like having your head banged against the concrete ... Oh it happened on more that a few occasions ... LOL

Aha, so people questioning your rabid homophobia you'd gladly beat up, I'm beginning to get a more and more clear idea of your intellectual capacity, mr. big tough guy you. LOL

[EsoognomEhT]

And pray do tell us Mr Anderson which regiment that would be?

[Chaosmarine1]

Also 2Sheds_Jackson, you make it sound like the US army would turn into one big sausage fest, if they were to do like the European armies! :D

[Sabre]

I think 2 Sheds was USAF (?), that is a sausage fest already! :lol:

[Lt. James Anderson]

Aha, so people questioning your rabid homophobia you'd gladly beat up, I'm beginning to get a more and more clear idea of your intellectual capacity, mr. big tough guy you. LOL

Homophobia? NO such thing exists. Just because you like to do what no man should do is your own problem but justifyng it to me (you are justifying it to yourself actually) is what I consider BS (and I don't like people who BS too much). You are the one intolerant of different opinions ...

And judging my intellectual capacity on my opinion of homo******ity (something that no man does or should do) says a lot more about your intellectual capacity than mine.


And pray do tell us Mr Anderson which regiment that would be?

I served in 82 nd and 101 st. As for the regiments, I don't think it's any of your business.

[Chaosmarine1]

Homophobia? NO such thing exists. Just because you like to do what no man should do is your own problem but justifyng it to me (you are justifying it to yourself actually) is what I consider BS (and I don't like people who BS too much). You are the one intolerant of different opinions ...

And judging my intellectual capacity on my opinion of homo******ity (something that no man does or should do) says a lot more about your intellectual capacity than mine.


Did I say I was gay? You think all those who are fine with gays in the military in this thread are homo******s themselves, just because you're too much of a thug to accept other lifestyles yourself?

Sure I can accept other opinions (quite unlike you), as long as they don't come from some primitive violent bigot, then they should be countered imo.

Have a nice day Rambo.

[Aerosoul]

Gay people. A dirty little secret....that's tolerance. Idiots.

Anderson the only reason allowing someone to say '"I'm gay" would degrade combat efficiency is because of people like you who allow what people do with their partner, in private, get to you. Do you care if your neighbors have anal ***? Do you care if the people across the street use *** toys? Do you care if your CO and his wife tie each other up? Why do you care if two guys love each other?

You're just a close-minded bigot, when the likes of you aren't making policy people will all get along much better, and the country will be better for it.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Did I say I was gay? You think all those who are fine with gays in the military in this thread are homo******s themselves, just because you're too much of a thug to accept other lifestyles yourself?

Yes, it's a posibility ... What we used to say in my unit ... you can fcuk 10 000 women and suck one **** (just that one time and never again) and you are a fag for life ...
Well, I'm not very accepting of bestiality, *** with children, rape, murder etc. either. Those are lifestyles also and some consider them normal ... Does that mean I'm the one with the problem?
I don't think so ...
If it wasn't for the politics homo******ity would still be on the APA list ...


Sure I can accept other opinions (quite unlike you), as long as they don't come from some primitive violent bigot, then they should be countered imo.

Have a nice day Rambo.

LOL ... If thinking that homo******ity is unnatural and wrong makes me a violent primitive bigot so be it .I can live with that. ;)


Anderson the only reason allowing someone to say '"I'm gay" would degrade combat efficiency is because of people like you who allow what people do with their partner, in private, get to you.

Aerosol, people like me (unlike you if you never served) who served for years and have multiple combat tours should have a say in it ... If you don't agree, join up, walk the walk and then talk all the sheet you want.

[Kant]

The military should not be an instrument for social change.
But...


Aerosol, people like me (unlike you if you never served) who served for years and have multiple combat tours should have a say in it ... If you don't agree, join up, walk the walk and then talk all the sheet you want.

In fact you shouldn't have a say in it.You obviously have a vested interest in keeping homo******s out of the military.That's fine, that's your business. But your opinion only matters if the opinions of every single person who ever served in the military and saw combat as well are also taken into consideration.I doubt they want to smash homo******s heads on the ground as you, or any other of your mates seem want to do.Until others opinions are counted and used in forming some sort of policy regarding homo******s in the U.S military, Aerosoul has as much right to express an opinion as you do, as serving in the military does not automatically make you right, nor you opinion any more valuable than his.

And yes before you ask I have served in the military.

[Lt. James Anderson]

I doubt they want to smash homo******s heads on the ground as you,

That's not what I said.
Being stupid and insulting, talking sheet would be a sure way to get your azz beat (his comment about us not being bright .. lol).


Aerosoul has as much right to express an opinion as you do, as serving in the military does not automatically make you right, nor you opinion any more valuable than his.

Really?
That's like me saying I have as much right to express opinion on some medical matters as some surgeon.
If he never served (which judging by his answer is obvious) his opinion how it would affect combat effectiveness is less valuable than mine.

[Roy Batty]

Aerosol, people like me (unlike you if you never served) who served for years and have multiple combat tours should have a say in it ... If you don't agree, join up, walk the walk and then talk all the sheet you want.

Soldiers should enforce policy, not make it.

[martinexsquaddie]

thing annoyed me about the NAvy at the gay pride march was they were frankly a shower of **** :(
I know matlots can't really do drill but why advertise the fact to the public:(
its not that they were gay it was the fact they could'nt march and there unifrom needed ironing:(
you were'nt the 82nd airborne officer who set up his platoon attack for a fibuia assualt in front of a concealed machine gun post in scotland were you.
not that was'nt a very bright thing to do :)

[Chaosmarine1]

That's not what I said.
Being stupid and insulting, talking sheet would be a sure way to get your azz beat (his comment about us not being bright .. lol).

No, you just said it was a sure way to get killed by you and your squaddies, that makes it A LOT BETTER... oh wait. LOL

Also, you really aren't entitled to have more of a say just because you've been shellshocked or whatever. Your views has nothing to do with homo******s ability to serve, which makes your opinion irrelevant, as you simple don't like them just 'cause.
Seems to me you got some scary redneck attitude going on there.

Hell with your logic, seasoned soldiers should have a say about what skin colour is acceptable, simply because some might not like black people.

BTW. I served in the royal Danish army.