Military recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants

#26
#26
lumberjack4 said:
When blacks were first allowed to serve and units were integrated, I can guarantee you there were distractions. Those guys learned to get over it and now we have many fine soldiers of all colors serving.
Click to expand...

Color of skin and sexual preference are two totally different things my friend.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
7thgroupvolfan said:
Spoken like a true civilian.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

i'm well aware that in mostly male machismo situations that homophobia runs rampant. that doesn't mean it's ok. the only reason why i'm not 100% in the "deal with it" camp is because recruiting is already suffering and we are at war.
 
#33
#33
If you are in the middle of combat and you are concerned about the sexual orientation of the people fighting with you, you have other issues that may make you unqualified to serve. just saying.
 
#36
#36
kev20 said:
If you are in the middle of combat and you are concerned about the sexual orientation of the people fighting with you, you have other issues that may make you unqualified to serve. just saying.
Click to expand...

What are those?
 
#37
#37
BearCat204 said:
I am not calling you anything. I just dont understand how a person being gay would have any implications in a combat situation. To be honest, I would think women would be more of a distraction in combat than gay men. But that is jmo and I do appreciate your opinion of it as well.
Click to expand...

In combat, sex is the last thing anyone is thinking about
 
#39
#39
kev20 said:
If you are in the middle of combat and you are concerned about the sexual orientation of the people fighting with you, you have other issues that may make you unqualified to serve. just saying.
Click to expand...
This is the point that I am trying to make. Sexual orientation could be a distraction as far as berthing and shower time, I get that. When it comes to combat situations, whether or not a guy is gay has no effect on the fight
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
lumberjack4 said:
I don't doubt there are some things that will have to change because of the ruling, but the thought that allowing gays in the military handicaps are fighting forces is ludicrous. In 10 years people will look back on this like we were crazy for the big deal that was being made by people like joevol.
Click to expand...

This will in the short run cause waves which will increase risk to soldiers in the combat zone. In the long run, it's the right thing to do.
 
#42
#42
lumberjack4 said:
I don't doubt there are some things that will have to change because of the ruling, but the thought that allowing gays in the military handicaps are fighting forces is ludicrous. In 10 years people will look back on this like we were crazy for the big deal that was being made by people like joevol.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Women to this day only serve an extremely limited role in combat. There is still pushback for them being there.
 
#44
#44
BearCat204 said:
This is the point that I am trying to make. Sexual orientation could be a distraction as far as berthing and shower time, I get that. When it comes to vambay situations, whether or not a guy is gay has no effect on the fight
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

even then, I don't see why there would be a distraction unless straight guys think that the gay guys will try to rape them. just a hunch, but I'm guessing if they were there for sexual gratification, there are far more places they could go to ensure success.
 
#45
#45
MontereyVol said:
I doubt it. Women to this day only serve an extremely limited role in combat. There is still pushback for them being there.
Click to expand...

But they have a right too. They have due process that is being denied. Women can pull a trigger. Why are they denied as well?
 
#47
#47
BearCat204 said:
The only argument I have heard about women being a distraction in combat has to do with the emotional ties of them being killed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

"America is not ready for its women to come home in body bags" Still rings true even though they have been.

For me its their lack of power that is a detriment to the team.
 
#48
#48
CSpindizzy said:
But they have a right too. They have due process that is being denied. Women can pull a trigger. Why are they denied as well?
Click to expand...

My wife is an 0-4 graduate of the Academy and NPS, she has done four tours to the ME, one with the Army and one deployment. She is a former NCAA track athlete and can outrun any distance runner on this board.

That said, I would pick a man over her to serve in combat. I try to take emotion out of decisions I make and she just doesn't have the physical attributes that I would need for a combat strike. Strap a 100 pound pack on her and she cant move.
 
#49
#49
kev20 said:
If you are in the middle of combat and you are concerned about the sexual orientation of the people fighting with you, you have other issues that may make you unqualified to serve. just saying.
Click to expand...

Sir, I kill....I teach others how to kill. Not sure if that makes me "qualified" or not, but I tend to think that I do my job well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#50
#50
7thgroupvolfan said:
Sir, I kill....I teach others how to kill. Not sure if that makes me "qualified" or not, but I tend to think that I do my job well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So you are concerned with the sexual orientation of the man next to you in combat?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top