Obama May End Military's Ban on Gays

It would make them useful. They are just a waste on the planet right now, not continuing the human life cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kn7ghT

It would make them useful. They are just a waste on the planet right now, not continuing the human life cycle.

---

wow thats just wrong...

why are ppl so closed minded now a days gay people are humans like anyone else they can do what we can and maybe better...its not like gay is a disease that makes it so they cant do anything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWiseGuy

wow thats just wrong...

why are ppl so closed minded now a days gay people are humans like anyone else they can do what we can and maybe better...its not like gay is a disease that makes it so they cant do anything

---

I agree.

On top of that, if we continue to reproduce soo rapidly, it's only gonna bring destruction anyways

D=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWiseGuy

wow thats just wrong...

why are ppl so closed minded now a days gay people are humans like anyone else they can do what we can and maybe better...its not like gay is a disease that makes it so they cant do anything

---

If you want to get technical, a good deal of gay people are a waste. Animals, which we are, were meant to reproduce and overrun the Earth with our Animalia children. D:< A lot of them don't bother. They just adopt children.

ADOPTIN' AIN'T YO JOB, FOO'!

@Lastknownhobo, That's why societal restrictions, like the amount of children you can have, take place in places like China.

Reproducing ain't nobody's job foo. (although I would love to list 'sex machine' on my CV)

Am I the only one thinking 'Pink Brigade'?

No no no and no.We dont need gays in the army >.>.They would ruin it with their gayness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cereal&Milk

If you want to get technical, a good deal of gay people are a waste. Animals, which we are, were meant to reproduce and overrun the Earth with our Animalia children. D:< A lot of them don't bother. They just adopt children.

ADOPTIN' AIN'T YO JOB, FOO'!

@Lastknownhobo, That's why societal restrictions, like the amount of children you can have, take place in places like China.

---

Or could homosexuality be a natural mechanism built into us to attempt to control over-population? Because over-population leads to extinction because the area can no longer sustain the life. So, I'd say that constant breeding is in fact very bad for the human race, or any race for that matter.



But anyway, thats getting off-topic.
This is a good thing. The "Don't ask don't tell" policy is really just stupid and non-effective, and is still discriminatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lastknownhobo

I believe they can have more if they pay a fee, but the one-child is standard for those who don't.

---

Basically if they have more than one child they loose child support not sure what happens if its twins though i assume its fair.

You guys have totally derailed this thread. As if gays are worthless! Besides, our world is getting overpopulated anyways... you should be thanking them.

Now stop debating over the wrong topic.

Good point.

If they're worthless, doesn't that mean we do want them in the Army?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWiseGuy

wow thats just wrong...

why are ppl so closed minded now a days gay people are humans like anyone else they can do what we can and maybe better...its not like gay is a disease that makes it so they cant do anything

---

It may be wrong, but it's actually right.

I don't know why, but I'm actually feeling offended.....>:(

I should get it locked/deleted, but whatever....

What is Pink Brigade? o-o

And why would it even matter if you're gay or straight as long as you can shoot the other guy? -__-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kn7ghT

It would make them useful. They are just a waste on the planet right now, not continuing the human life cycle.

---

A female is involved in a car accident, for example, she is unable to concieve children.

But she is a charity worker who helps thousands of handicapped children.

Or she is a researcher for cancer treatment.

She is a waste of space, then?

You disgust me, a long with many other people in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Murxidon

You disgust me, a long with many other people in this thread.

---

I'm finally in complete agreement with you.

:hmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danuve

I'm finally in complete agreement with you.

:hmm:

---

What he said.

Very well said, Murxi!

The only wastes are people who join the army.

It needed to be said.

IMO we need more gays.

We're going to become overpopulated very soon.

I already tried my chances with Woshii... but she denied my love D:

Keep it up guys. I already banned one of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manic

For the same reason, it could be very possible that a gay man would be discriminated against by a medic, endangering his life because the medic wanted to treat the straight person first. It's not a matter of sexism or bigotry here, it's a matter of safety. We don't live in a peachy perfect world where everyone gets along, so if we at least force soldiers, the people we train to kill, to operate on a neutral level with each other then we can save ourselves from a lot of potential conflict in the military.

---

Theres some truth to that statement, but unless the medic knows who that person is, its not likely their going to know of their sexual orientation.

plus, the article said that they weren't in frontline positions. Most of the ones that were laid off were on side jobs. I'd hope to think that when war breaks out and all hell breaks loose in the medical tent, they wouldn't stop and think "oh he's gay. i'm not going to treat him". There's just no time for that.

i think the biggest reason why people want to ban homosexuals from the military is because they believe them to be going into services that are traditionally male dominated. its only recently that females have been going into the service as marines, air force pilots, and navy officers, and now they're trying to open up to homosexuals. Theres the issue of the image portrayed by the service, and thats what bureaucrats are worried about.

We're going to be overpopulated...soon?

We've been overpopulated for ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manic

Personally, I think this is a mistake. It's a mistake for the same reason allowing women to be infantry would be a mistake.

Now, before I get flamed, let me explain myself. Let's say two people are injured in a fight, a man and a woman. The man's injuries are more serious than the woman's, and the woman can survive long enough to be treated at a later time whereas the man can not. The worry is that the woman will be prioritized over the man simply because of her sex, and that mistakes will be made because of that. When certain soldiers do get special treatment, things have the potential to go even more wrong, and in the case of the two injured soldiers, people will die.

For the same reason, it could be very possible that a gay man would be discriminated against by a medic, endangering his life because the medic wanted to treat the straight person first. It's not a matter of sexism or bigotry here, it's a matter of safety. We don't live in a peachy perfect world where everyone gets along, so if we at least force soldiers, the people we train to kill, to operate on a neutral level with each other then we can save ourselves from a lot of potential conflict in the military.

---

So what's next? Stopping black people from joining the army in case a medic is racist?

I don't actually think you've thought that through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

Lol, what??

You really think, that a combat-field deployed medic has time for that crap?

The reason why women weren't allowed into the army, were largely, that they in average can't carry as much;
That and 14th century morals.

---

Completely wrong, Ronin. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about the present day US military. There are several jobs which are restricted to men, infantry being one of them, and the reason is what I had stated before. Men are programmed to protect women, and that can cause irrational choices and blatant mistakes to be made.

I said, "If you want to get technical." Technicalities shouldn't be enough to spawn 2 to 3 pages worth of arguments. Technicalities are supposed to be insignificant details. I mentioned what I mentioned because I thought it would be important to note a counter point, even if it would be flawed. :-/

I guess opinion can't be tolerated once it comes to touchy ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FabianN

Or could homosexuality be a natural mechanism built into us to attempt to control over-population? Because over-population leads to extinction because the area can no longer sustain the life. So, I'd say that constant breeding is in fact very bad for the human race, or any race for that matter.

---

Like disease and psychological imbalances? I wouldn't like to think of it as a population control method. :x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manic

Completely wrong, Ronin. I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about the present day US military. There are several jobs which are restricted to men, infantry being one of them, and the reason is what I had stated before. Men are programmed to protect women, and that can cause irrational choices and blatant mistakes to be made.

---

Lol.

If that's your opinion.
I place it in your hands to evaluate it, I am not here to "set you straight", I really don't care that much about what people might say on this topic.

I have taken my time to form an opinion, btw on the grounds of having served with women.

The issues usually do not at all go into the direction of men being to protective. If there are any "programmings" in men, they are rather violent in opposition to courteous. (Roflmo, really...)