Gays in the army - do it like the Spartans?

Original post by TheQuickestSilver

About as good as everyone else's argument...

Reply 61

TheQuickestSilver

Original post by Mm_Minty

That was completely uncalled for.
Why is he disgusting? Why is he a sick ****? Is it because his dad is gay?

You seem very fond of the whole "I have my views, you have yours" idea, but the moment someone shows an opposing view to you, you start swearing at them and being very offensive.

If you're like this in real life, I doubt you'll go much longer without someone breaking your face.

No go and get a proper argument against gays serving in the army, apart from "it's wrong/sick/distracting" (gays do actually have willpower and are not going to get into a relationship with every other gay man they find there :rolleyes:

)

Why is he disgusting? errm because he is trying to insult the whole British army by saying that they all probably bum each other, when they are risking their life for queen and country to keep people like you safe (I personally don't know why). And IRL no no one has ever 'broken my face', haha silly person.

Reply 62

Eclectic Styles

Original post by manthew

X

Original post by Linweth

X

Original post by Skoji

X

Original post by aws

X

I don't think gays should discriminated based on their sexual orientation. Nor do I think that gays should be banned from enlisting in the armed services. And the same goes for being repressed or buillied while enlisted (though the usual banter is fine, of course. :wink2:

)

Where I think it goes wrong is when, just like any other situation in war, is when you bring your **** from the camp into the field.

Be straight, be gay, whatever. It's the same for men and men as it is for men and women (and vice versa and its inverse). If we're attracted to someone, indeed, actually in some kind of relationship with them, we're very likely to get stupid very quickly when it comes to reality of armed service (you know, bullets, bombs and all that ****?).

To me, it's about efficiency. I couldn't really care if you're gay or not. Nor could I care as much if you had a relationship within or outside of the army/navy/air force (whatever). What I do care about is if you're going to be able to perform when the **** hits the fan because if you let yourself fall to getting all "no, my sweet!" then your unit and squad as a whole is going to be put in massive danger.

Essentially, it's a case of just making sure you can trust yourself when you go into the field to NOT be led by your heart in seeing that your lover is not hurt/endangered/killed because you're in the army and it may well happen, whether you like it or not.

So, to 'round it off, "leave that **** back at base!"

Reply 63

Original post by TheQuickestSilver

Friendly advice? Calling me an annoying little prick for expressing my views :confused:

yeah really friendly...

And well about the hell thing, according to the bible I'm going straight to heaven, not sure about everyone else on this thread though... :tongue:

1.) Owh in case you didn't notice. There was one advice and one malicious sentence. I'm sorry you failed to see it.

2.) Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say you are a little prick for expressing your view. I said you are that little prick yourself :colondollar:

Reply 64

TheQuickestSilver

Original post by manthew

1.) Owh in case you didn't notice. There was one advice and one malicious sentence. I'm sorry you failed to see it.

2.) Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say you are a little prick for expressing your view. I said you are that little prick yourself :colondollar:

You don't even know me you sad **** so how can you say I'm a prick myself. The only reason everyone is kicking off and being rude to me is because I expressed that I think it is wrong for gays to be in the army and obviously a lot of people took offence like yourself because you think I'm discriminating against you. I don't have a problem that your homosexual I just don't think you should be allowed to serve in the army. Oh and btw I think your a prick yourself :colondollar:

.

Reply 65

Original post by Eclectic Styles

To me, it's about efficiency. I couldn't really care if you're gay or not. Nor could I care as much if you had a relationship within or outside of the army/navy/air force (whatever). What I do care about is if you're going to be able to perform when the **** hits the fan because if you let yourself fall to getting all "no, my sweet!" then your unit and squad as a whole is going to be put in massive danger.

That's is rather bold, don't you think. Yeah it is plausible. However, as someone has mentioned before, it could be other way around for the case of Spartans. That 'efficiency' is really a questionable claim imho.

-If there is one gay soldier went all "No, my sweet". Wouldn't the same feeling be induced when your best friend is killed "No, my bestiee, who's gotta drink with meee OWH NOOOES Who's gotta manage the Bubbla Shrimp Company :frown:

" I personally think they aren't any differences. Moreover, I'm pretty sure there's some kind of "test" taken out before they let you out on the field.

-If you're assuming all platoon would go "No, my sweet" then you're probably making a very risky assumption.

Speaking about efficiency. Wouldn't you wish to recruit more people (gays in this case) who is able to handle guns and (probably) bother to train more (you know, the typical gay beliefs :s-smilie:

)

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 66

Original post by TheQuickestSilver

Why is he disgusting? errm because he is trying to insult the whole British army by saying that they all probably bum each other, when they are risking their life for queen and country to keep people like you safe (I personally don't know why). And IRL no no one has ever 'broken my face', haha silly person.

Why are these two things mutually exclusive, exactly?

Reply 67

Original post by TheQuickestSilver

You don't even know me you sad **** so how can you say I'm a prick myself. The only reason everyone is kicking off and being rude to me is because I expressed that I think it is wrong for gays to be in the army and obviously a lot of people took offence like yourself because you think I'm discriminating against you. I don't have a problem that your homosexual I just don't think you should be allowed to serve in the army. Oh and btw I think your a prick yourself :colondollar:

.

-But all your neg reps say otherwise.. Owh and btw, I've known you enough, thank you very much

-I can't deny that everyone being rude because of your modernly-unconventional belief. But really, it is your latter behaviour that make yourself an exhibition. Tsk tsk

-Discrimination? Owh don't worry, I don't feel anything, especially from an ignorant bugger. Owh and I don't have a problem on your problem towards my problem which you think it is a problem, which is genuinely not a problem.

-PRICK? Wohoooo I wish. I'm not the one being rudely attacked on. Owh and btw, I don't think I give a damn about it.

p/s Oh and btw, quit saying "Oh and.." at the end of your post. I thought I've pointed out the obvious. Make up your petty mind before posting something up.

Matt

Original post by Phil2202

Why are these two things mutually exclusive, exactly?

Lol too much TSA? I wish I had anymore rep point left.. Sorry phil, you're gotta wait. Hahahas :smile:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 68

DaveSmith99

Original post by TheQuickestSilver

You don't even know me you sad **** so how can you say I'm a prick myself. The only reason everyone is kicking off and being rude to me is because I expressed that I think it is wrong for gays to be in the army and obviously a lot of people took offence like yourself because you think I'm discriminating against you. I don't have a problem that your homosexual I just don't think you should be allowed to serve in the army. Oh and btw I think your a prick yourself :colondollar:

.

After the way you have conducted yourself in this thread I can safely say that you are indeed a prick.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 69

Original post by manthew

Lol too much TSA? I wish I had anymore rep point left.. Sorry phil, you're gotta wait. Hahahas :smile:

Haha more than likely :wink:

Reply 70

The-Infamous

This thread is just so ****ed up for many reasons.

If you went to an army HQ in afghanistan and said "Alright soldiers, how about we all bum each other spartan style?" they would probably just beat the crap out of you.

Why am I so sure that the OP is a little faggot that fantasizes about sucking a soldiers dick so makes threads like these to see if others feel the same?

Reply 71

Arekkusu

16

Original post by aws

I don't want to be in the army but I should expand.

The Spartans were more what we would call bi-sexual. They married women, but also had male friends who they bonded with.

I mean being raised from 6 onwards for 10-20 years with men only and homosexuality was approved of.

Look how amazing they were.

The gendered dichotomy didn't exist; in the ancient world stigmas were more based on who was on top/bottom.

Reply 72

Original post by The-Infamous

This thread is just so ****ed up for many reasons.

If you went to an army HQ in afghanistan and said "Alright soldiers, how about we all bum each other spartan style?" they would probably just beat the crap out of you.

Why am I so sure that the OP is a little faggot that fantasizes about sucking a soldiers dick so makes threads like these to see if others feel the same?

Waw a new account?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 73

Original post by The-Infamous

This thread is just so ****ed up for many reasons.

If you went to an army HQ in afghanistan and said "Alright soldiers, how about we all bum each other spartan style?" they would probably just beat the crap out of you.

Why am I so sure that the OP is a little faggot that fantasizes about sucking a soldiers dick so makes threads like these to see if others feel the same?

Maybe so, but wouldn't you agree that this is because of social attitudes towards homosexuality? Regardless of how much we, as a society, claim to be void of discrimination, homosexuality is still seen as undesirable by a sizable proportion of the population, simply because attitudes are difficult to change: it takes time.

If attitudes towards homosexuality were to change, would you agree that the OP's post is actually fairly sensible?

Reply 74

The-Infamous

Original post by Phil2202

Maybe so, but wouldn't you agree that this is because of social attitudes towards homosexuality? Regardless of how much we, as a society, claim to be void of discrimination, homosexuality is still seen as undesirable by a sizable proportion of the population, simply because attitudes are difficult to change: it takes time.

If attitudes towards homosexuality were to change, would you agree that the OP's post is actually fairly sensible?

No not at all. The majority of soldiers will have their woman at home waiting for them, what on earth makes you think that they would suddenly want to begin taking part in sexual activities with other men? Typical "male bonding" isn't doing your best mate up the ass, these soldiers bond with each over enough by fighting on the front line together and saving each others lives.

Men are men and shouldn't be getting turned on by others. Can you imagine what would happen if you went into the army and got a boner while showering with other naked men. Don't think any of them would want to shower with you again.

Reply 75

Eclectic Styles

Original post by Arekkusu

The gendered dichotomy didn't exist; in the ancient world stigmas were more based on who was on top/bottom.

You put that in there like that on purpose, didn't you? :colonhash:

Original post by manthew

That's is rather bold, don't you think. Yeah it is plausible. However, as someone has mentioned before, it could be other way around for the case of Spartans. That efficiency is really a questionable claim imho.

-If there is one gay soldier went all "No, my sweet". Wouldn't the same feeling be induced when your best friend is killed "No, my bestiee, who's gotta drink with meee OWH NOOOES Who's gotta manage the Bubbla Shrimp Company :frown:

" I personally think they aren't any differences. Moreover, I'm pretty sure there's some kind of "test" taken out before they let you out on the field.

-If you're assuming all platoon would go "No, my sweet" then you're probably making a very risky assumption.

Speaking about efficiency. Wouldn't you wish to recruit more people (gays in this case) who is able to handle guns and (probably) bother to train more (you know, the typical gay beliefs :s-smilie:

)

- If efficiency is a questionable claim, then why is it one of the top priorities for standing militaries around the world to be efficient? (I imagine that to be the case, anyhow. If a soldier can't follow orders correctly, what in the nine hells are they doing in the army?)

- I'd say it'd be a close feeling but not quite. Then again, who am I to decide if it wouldn't be or not? I'm not a soldier. I haven't had the experience of being a "brother in arms" in my life so far. Knowing myself from relationships on my end and those of friends and then the general talk you hear everywhere, I'd say we do stupid/risky stuff a lot more willingly for a lover than a friend.

- I don't think I made an implication there that the entire platoon would get stupid all in one go (though, that would probably make for a great expose on secret lives of armed servicmen :colonhash:

) but I do know that I've used the "no, my sweet" example as an analogy in the same way that when one cog in the gears fails then the whole machine dies. (NOTE: reading that over, I now realise how easily that last part could be misconstrewed. Well, I ain't stopping you! Go mad!)

(I like the Forest Gump reference. :smile:

)

That last part of your post is brodering on hypocrisy aganist anti-gay discrimation beliefs, wouldn't you agree? :wink2:

Reply 76

Original post by The-Infamous

No not at all. The majority of soldiers will have their woman at home waiting for them, what on earth makes you think that they would suddenly want to begin taking part in sexual activities with other men? Typical "male bonding" isn't doing your best mate up the ass, these soldiers bond with each over enough by fighting on the front line together and saving each others lives.

Men are men and shouldn't be getting turned on by others. Can you imagine what would happen if you went into the army and got a boner while showering with other naked men. Don't think any of them would want to shower with you again.

But everything you just said there was a result of social attitudes towards homosexuality; so, like I said previously, if they were changed, this policy would be sensible, no?

Reply 77

The-Infamous

Original post by Phil2202

But everything you just said there was a result of social attitudes towards homosexuality; so, like I said previously, if they were changed, this policy would be sensible, no?

Eh...? That's like saying "If everyone was fine with homosexuality this would be ok, right?". Your question answers itself.

But the fact of the matter is, everyone isn't alright with man love and rightly so! It's completely sick, twisted and wrong.

Reply 78

tieyourmotherdown

Original post by TheQuickestSilver

The only reason everyone is kicking off and being rude to me is because I expressed that I think it is wrong for gays to be in the army and obviously a lot of people took offence like yourself because you think I'm discriminating against you.

Actually I think the main reason why people are arguing against you is because, to put it simply, you're wrong. Now I know opinion is just that, opinion, however the Ministry Of Defence has actually said that allowing gay people to serve openly has had no negative affect at all on the British army, which means your opinion is hard to argue given that the body which clearly knows the most about this is disagreeing with you. Mark Chapman, head of diversity for the British Army said:

"We got to the point where the policy was incompatible with military service and there was a lack of logic and evidence to support it... We knew a lot of gay and lesbian people were serving quite successfully, and it was clear that sexual orientation wasn’t an indication of how good a soldier or officer you could be... The reality was that those serving in the army were the same people the day after we lifted the ban, so there was no notable change at all. Everybody carried on with their duties and had the same working relationships as they previously had while the ban was in place".

Colonel Abraham argues that the lifting of the ban actually made the armed forces more productive: "A lot of gay and lesbian soldiers who were in the army before the ban was lifted, reported that a percentage of their efforts was spent looking over their shoulder and ensuring they weren’t going to be caught. That percentage of time can now be devoted to work and their home life, so actually they are more effective than they were before."

Now if the Army itself is saying that the ban on openly gay soldiers was needless, why are you still arguing for it? You have yet to provide solid proof that a ban is a good thing and you haven't refuted any points seriously. People are willing to have a serious debate with you, but only if you take the debate seriously and actually argue your point, which you have yet to do.

Reply 79