Combat troops to get gay sensitivity training

[alxone]

If we have no guaranteed rights to serve in the military, then we should do whatever it takes to keep it an elite fighting force. No matter, whose feelings get hurt.

period. my opinion.

+1

[alxone]

im all for gays in the military , im sure we could always use them to do it the old russian way . 1 bolt action rifle per 2 or 3 guys , no cover, no tanks , no fire support , no air cover , human wave style attacks , and if they turn back we shot em for cowardice . lol , i bet a lot less people would turn up gay , lol , sorry my southern baptist up bringing is coming out a little .
personally the military should be about the defense and offense of war and fighting , gay, straight , black , white, christian or muslim . Once you make join it should not matter . Bad words and harsh feelings concerning race , sex and religion are part of fighting of all sorts and to restrict something as simple as the language of said fighter , reduces his combat effectiveness .

[Hoosier]

In the corporate sectore there is the term "loyalty". In the military there is a "sense of duty". These might sound the same but they aren't anything alike.

Esprit de corps is something that I haven't seen anything in the civilian sector that even clomes close.

The camaraderie between brothers in arms has no civilian equivalent either. Sure, I've had camaraderie with coworkers in the civilian sector, but nothing like what I experienced in the military; it just doesn't exist.

The bonds you form, the pride of service you experience, the sacrifices you make for a cause much greater than yourself - and often times you family take on a nuance that just don't translate into the civilian sector.

This is the kind of answer I'm looking for. Do you feel this level of connection with people when you're all sitting in the rear with the gear, or is it the sort of thing that only kicks in when you're in a trench and the bullets are flying? Does it come from training with those specific guys, or is it a more general feeling towards everyone in uniform?

H.

[Hoosier]

If we have no guaranteed rights to serve in the military, then we should do whatever it takes to keep it an elite fighting force. No matter, whose feelings get hurt.

Do you think that gays will necessarily make it a non-elite fighting force? I think that assumption would be pretty easy to disprove. I've met my fair share of gay guys. You want to know how you can tell if someone's gay? They like to sleep with people of their own gender. Just because that guy can bench 300lbs and made it through Seal school, doesn't mean he isn't gay.

H.

[SA Friday]

I just don't get it. The evidence as to the right path on this issue is clear, evident, and historically repeated. Approve or disapprove of homosexuality, if you deny that intrigration only makes any military or government or society stronger, you are denying what history has shown us for thousands of years.

If you think an hour spent on a new policy while in the field is just too horrible to consider, then you don't remember your time in the field. Its simply a non issue for the time spent. As for the message itself, only the weak will let it stray their focus on the mission. That will last as long as the NCOs allow it. In my unit, all of one bitch session and then its hammer time. This topic is just not an issue at all. Its only as big an issue as you want to make it into, and then the real issue is fixating on a minor policy change. This is not a big rock in the jar.

[HBARleatherneck]

Do you think that gays will necessarily make it a non-elite fighting force? I think that assumption would be pretty easy to disprove. I've met my fair share of gay guys. You want to know how you can tell if someone's gay? They like to sleep with people of their own gender. Just because that guy can bench 300lbs and made it through Seal school, doesn't mean he isn't gay.

H.

no, i am saying, where do you drawn the line? everyone gets to serve? wether they help or hinder the mission? fat people can be patriotic too. just because someone is a midget/dwarf doesnt mean he/she doesnt deserve to serve. just because a guy is in a wheelchair doesnt mean we shouldnt accomadate his limitations at the front. we should have two combat troops pushing or pulling this person, because they want to serve and feel that they are ENTITLED TO SERVE. just because someone is a devout muslim hell bent on killing Americans doesnt mean he cant serve in our nations forces. so, where do you draw the line?

We allready draw the line on ages that may serve. we dont let extreme fat bodies serve, we arent going to let a parapeligic into a combat unit. that is predjudice and wrong, right?

whats wrong with America today? Entitlement, and everyone wanting to be treated differently. if someone gay is going to serve anyway, why any special treatment or instructions by the military to protect the person. either it works or it doesnt. if everyone were treated the same and not special, it would probably work out.

still nobody has answered... does anyone have the right to serve in the military? is it written in some book, somewhere, that everyone regardless of race, nationality, gender, sexuality, physical limitation, mental limitations all have the RIGHT to serve? anyone? or is this really about pushing gay special rights? and not actual equality?


and to more directly answer hoosier... i think we should tighten up the ranks. less pussies, less panzies, stronger, faster, better. more dedicated, less limp dick sick bay commandos. this is what our nation needs. not more of less. and that goes for straight, gay, black, white, green. joining the military shouldnt be about needing college money or job. if those come as a perk, so be it. thats great, but joining for these reasons probably weaken the force, not strengthen it.

[weirjf]

I just don't get it. The evidence as to the right path on this issue is clear, evident, and historically repeated. Approve or disapprove of homosexuality, if you deny that intrigration only makes any military or government or society stronger, you are denying what history has shown us for thousands of years.

If you think an hour spent on a new policy while in the field is just too horrible to consider, then you don't remember your time in the field. Its simply a non issue for the time spent. As for the message itself, only the weak will let it stray their focus on the mission. That will last as long as the NCOs allow it. In my unit, all of one bitch session and then its hammer time. This topic is just not an issue at all. Its only as big an issue as you want to make it into, and then the real issue is fixating on a minor policy change. This is not a big rock in the jar.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

[Byte Stryke]

n

We already draw the line on ages that may serve. we dont let extreme fat bodies serve, we aren't going to let a paraplegic into a combat unit. that is prejudice and wrong, right?

I take it you have been out for quite a while.

[BigBear]

They still won't let me in..... [sad face]

[HBARleatherneck]

well Byte, I was never in the army. wow.

this topic is so stupid.

we waste so much time on it.

politicians who either didnt serve or cant remember that far back. dictate rules for the people who are actually actively serving.
people who did serve but no longer are in.
people who never served but have an opinion.

really unless you are currently affected by it, we should come up with new subject matter.

i am going to go outside and weld target stands. something productive that pertains to me and guns. bye