Gays responsible for Srebrenica massacre

[BuddhaRhubarb]

BTW "gay" or whatever other word you want to use is a choice for some of us.

I don't live a "gay" or "straight" lifestyle.  I live a life. It may have some style (those who know me would say I have great style) but it is neither definably gay or staright or any other word that debases it as being wholly concerned with who I sleep with.

To my mind anyone who bases their entire existence on which gender you prefer have sex with is a sad little person.

Currently when I feel up for sex it's dudes, only because it's simpler. less ritual, and planning. MY lifestyle is Lazy-sexual? :p

nope, I'm a person before I'm any sort of LGBT typology. I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.

That may be nice and dandy, but we don't live in a X-blind society (where X is race, color, or sexual orientation). To the homophobes out there you and I will always be freaks and that's how they will define us. One may hide his head in the sand and "reject labels" or own up to it and be gay/bi and proud about it.

Like a Jewish father once said to his son in a movie (the title of which I forgot) I once saw: "Remember always who you are, son, because even if you forget it, there will always be some son of a bitch to remind you of that."

I am not gay to the exclusion of everything else, but it is one of the important aspects of my identity. It is a matter of some intangible brotherhood based on common experience (of prejudice but not just that), similar sensibilities and similar perspective that is often impossible to understand for the "mainstream" people. In many ways, this kinship is greater than one created by ethnicity - I feel I have more in common with a gay person from the US than I have with a Polish catholic farmer, for example.

shrug. why do I need to embrace a "label" that has nothing to do with who I am. Fuck off. I'm not a sample of society. I'm one person, with an opinion. I never try to say that my way is better than anyone's (in fact I know I'm in a very small minority with my contrariness. That doesn't mean it's wrong for me though) or that there is some kind of "x-blind" society. It is my choice and my choice alone how I define myself. The rest of you can do as you like. I could not care less what "most" people think. I simply offer my view as something that is not the norm, so that people can have some awareness of it.

I am my own label.

[Alcibiades]

This is spot on.

Alci lad, you're a professional soldier - what did you think of the 'performance' of that general testifying before the senatorial comitee?  About his arguments and justifications to maintain the current DADT policy?  Do you think if things were in the open it would endanger units' cohesion and effectiveness?




G.

I wasn't able to hear his testimony, but my opinion on it, and I will say that many in my line of work in the military, being the infantry, is that flat out repealing it isn't a good idea.  With maybe some kind of stipulations or something to that effect I would endorse it.

For general soldiers, I really don't think it's a big deal at all.  But when it comes to deployment and the infantry I think it would be a problem. We had a gay soldier serving in my company, an infantryman, and while he was an alright guy, he tried to bitch out many times to go home, openly being flamboyant and telling the chain of command while DADT was still in effect doing anything he could to get out of the deployment.  Now this is just one example, because of his situation he had to have separate living quarters, and made his situation much worse.

When deployed, infantry are tasked out to small compounds usually living with 50-70 people in general in close proximity.  The way it is seen in general, is that combat troops can't mix gender, which is why no female soldiers are allowed in combat arms.  It would cause ridiculous amounts of problems, and I can see the same problems occurring if homosexual soldiers were intermixed within combat arms as well.  There would have to be segregated living quarters like there are for women in my opinion.  My combat outpost was all male, whenever female soldiers would come to our outpost for a night, they had to have their own room, and had to have their own bathroom and shower room guarded whenever they would use it, which was a real pain in the ass since we only had one shower and limited bathrooms as it was.  There is a zero-sex policy for deployments, and spouses are rarely together during deployments. 

There are a bunch of science tests and crap on the reactions in your brain when you see females and lovers in distress, favoritism, displaying macho tendencies, etc. 

I think that gays should be allowed in the military, but unless there are going to be all homosexual combat arms units, I don't really see it as very feasible for them to serve in them for the time being.  There's a lot of separating of the sexes in the military expressly because of the problems that arise because of it.  But I don't see that as very feasible, and I imagine that many people wouldn't see that as acceptable either.

(Haven't read over this gotta run so I'm sure its a jumbled mess, respond to it and ill clarify anything needed when I get home later tonight.)

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.

Its a good point Buddha.  I suspect the reason people go on about sexuality so much here is because Marti often raises the issue in such idiotic ways.

yeah that's likely right. everyone loves to play with marti's fragile brain. It's hard to resist I'd imagine for many. :p

Bitch, don't give me shit about "fragile brain". Seriously. 

why not? I'm completely aware of my own emo bullshit, and own up to that far more than I harass others about their own.

[Grallon]

...

There are a bunch of science tests and crap on the reactions in your brain when you see females and lovers in distress, favoritism, displaying macho tendencies, etc. 

I think that gays should be allowed in the military, but unless there are going to be all homosexual combat arms units, I don't really see it as very feasible for them to serve in them for the time being.  There's a lot of separating of the sexes in the military expressly because of the problems that arise because of it.  But I don't see that as very feasible, and I imagine that many people wouldn't see that as acceptable either.

...

You seem to be presupposing that all homosexuals would (re)act as this person you mentioned did - in similar circumstances.  What if they don't?  It's not everyone who cannot differentiate between their private and public roles.  True professonals should be able to make that distinction.  And if they aren't being professionals then yes they would have no place in the military. 




G.

[Sheilbh]

For general soldiers, I really don't think it's a big deal at all.  But when it comes to deployment and the infantry I think it would be a problem. We had a gay soldier serving in my company, an infantryman, and while he was an alright guy, he tried to bitch out many times to go home, openly being flamboyant and telling the chain of command while DADT was still in effect doing anything he could to get out of the deployment.  Now this is just one example, because of his situation he had to have separate living quarters, and made his situation much worse.

Was he really gay?

[BuddhaRhubarb]

He does have a cunning plan, though.

[Agelastus]

Wibble, wibble.

[Admiral Yi]

You seem to be presupposing that all homosexuals would (re)act as this person you mentioned did - in similar circumstances.  What if they don't?  It's not everyone who cannot differentiate between their private and public roles.  True professonals should be able to make that distinction.  And if they aren't being professionals then yes they would have no place in the military. 




G.

Please keep in mind that most of the unit is going to be a year or two out of high school.

[Grallon]

Please keep in mind that most of the unit is going to be a year or two out of high school.

Then it's a failure of the military to form and train its recruits accordingly.  And said failure is unavoibale if the issue itself is obfuscated from the start.




G.

[Admiral Yi]

Then it's a failure of the military to form and train its recruits accordingly.  And said failure is unavoibale if the issue itself is obfuscated from the start.




G.

Would you be saying the same thing if the issue were females serving, sleeping, showering and pissing in hitherto all-male combat units?

[Sheilbh]

Please keep in mind that most of the unit is going to be a year or two out of high school.

So are most Israeli, British, for that matter, Dutch soldiers.

[The Brain]

Then it's a failure of the military to form and train its recruits accordingly.  And said failure is unavoibale if the issue itself is obfuscated from the start.




G.

Would you be saying the same thing if the issue were females serving, sleeping, showering and pissing in hitherto all-male combat units?

Maybe the comparison would make sense if in civilian schools, gyms etc men and women shared all facilities.

[Grallon]

Would you be saying the same thing if the issue were females serving, sleeping, showering and pissing in hitherto all-male combat units?

It does/would take a little 'getting used to'.  Of course men and women intermingling in the workplace is nothing new - even though in most cases it's under less... intimate conditions.  But we're not talking about females here since gay males are male first - homosexual second.  All iin all, nothing a thorough education cannot iron out. 

And I do hope you realize its the heterosexual education that needs ironing out since, according to you, they cannot handle either women or gays or, in another era, blacks...




G.

[crazy canuck]

There would have to be segregated living quarters like there are for women in my opinion. 

There are a bunch of science tests and crap on the reactions in your brain when you see females and lovers in distress, favoritism, displaying macho tendencies, etc. 

I dont think the analogy to mixed sex deployments works very well and to the extent it does you probably dont want all the gay guys segregated to themselves.  Isnt that exactly the problem you would be trying to avoid.

I wonder if there have been any similar tests done to see how all male combat units work with mixed gay and straight soldiers.  I suspect the results would be different.

[Alcibiades]

I'm more trying to say that people attracted to each other, or where one person is attracted to another whether reciprocated or not, should not be in such intimate circumstances for such a long period of time, I think it would wear on morale.  And whether true or not, if you think a person is gay and they're making remarks or looking at you funny you're going to take it differently than a guy you know is straight, just like a woman would from a man.

Basically what I'm getting at is what I said in the first sentence.  Urges become more acute, and rape and sexual assault will increase.  And then there will be cases of mixed signals etc.  It would get ugly in my opinion.  Which is why women aren't allowed.  It's not because they all can't do it, I've met many who are stronger than most men, and I'm sure many of you have as well.