“It is not appropriate for the U.S. military to tell lesbian and gay Americans that they are worthy of fighting and dying in a war zone, but unworthy of serving their country on the home front during peacetime,” said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which provides legal help to military gays facing dismissal.








URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17613069/



My Views:


I used to think gays are a soft guys so they could invade men ?!


:rn:



.

Maybe they want to get rid of them.

"are a soft guys" !?
the whole title is wrong

^Get use to his senseless grammar otherwise you'll start pulling your hair out

Why should sexuality have any bearing on one's ability in combat?

Sloath, if you are implying that gay men are "soft", so can't fight in a war .. then how do women go to combat?


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-21-13/image3888.jpg

OMG! It's an inferior, deficient being! :omg:

:hyper:

You might like to know that the article has nothing to do with one's ability to fight, but rather a matter of (or claiming to be of) discrimination. :p

^Get use to his senseless grammar otherwise you'll start pulling your hair out

its a HE !? :os

oh yeah it is a "he" and according to "his" public profile he's 40ish...

well u learn something new everyday!

Gay people are humans too u know.... sure they like other men but they do lead a normal life....normal jobs and do other things that heterosexuals do....

Why should sexuality have any bearing on one's ability in combat?

Sloath, if you are implying that gay men are "soft", so can't fight in a war .. then how do women go to combat?


OMG! It's an inferior, deficient being! :omg:

:hyper:

You might like to know that the article has nothing to do with one's ability to fight, but rather a matter of (or claiming to be of) discrimination. :p

Where do women go to combat? :os

Slow,

How did you come to your views of gay men?

Where do women go to combat? :os
they're called "war zones" jeff. :p

I don't know any military that has women in combat. War zones, yeah, there's whole COUNTRIES in war zones, men, women and kids.

No women in combat, though. Thank goodness.

Male Homosexuals and Women can be part of the military, but shouldn't be part of combat ... For obvious reasons ..

Jeff,

Women have fought in combat for centuries

Ti3ty,

What are your obvious reasons?

The whole notion of gay=soft is wrong, it's a sexual preference and it doesn't necessarily mean that because one is gay then he must be soft, and visa versa , just because a man is soft does not necessarily mean that he has to be gay.

Anyways I don't think sexual orientation matters when it comes to these things, as long as he has the ability to fight then he should be allowed to do so, whether he is gay or not.

Same applies to women.

Agreed NaBHan

I think they are soft because they tend to imitate women.

I think they are soft because they tend to imitate women.I think D_S is worried that the mighty mujahideen can't resist the gay soldiers.

people theres a difference between HOMOSEXUALS,TRANSEXUALS and METROSEXUALS
i thought people know all of this by now ! :os
there ARE homosexuals that can beat straight guys to deatn and vice versa
as nabz said their only difference is their sexual preference and the way they act doesnt relate to it

Pinky,
Women can't take the trauma of combat because of their emotional fragility, and homosexuality being the frown it is, faces some difficulties that makes it grow the same emotional fragility.

Actually, I agree with IceTea.
It's better to send them in the battlefield...It's one thing that America's doing some good to the world by getting rid of them.

As for women, Well, if they feel like 'fighting for their country' as America puts it, then let them do it. They're all fighting for a wrong cause anyhow, but there's obviously no room for thinking if you're in the army.

I don't know any military that has women in combat. War zones, yeah, there's whole COUNTRIES in war zones, men, women and kids.

No women in combat, though. Thank goodness.
Yes, there are countries who have women in combat.
For example Denmark, France, Finland , Russia, Israel have women in combat positions (on voluntary basis) , Germany they have female fighter pilots, the US have women serving on combat ships and Norway was the first country to allow women to serve on submarines.

http://images.military.com/pics/FL_women_012804.jpg


US rejects ban on women in combat
By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington



Republicans in the US Congress have ditched a flat ban on women in combat.
The House Armed Services Committee watered down proposals which would stop women from serving in support teams which back up front-line combat troops.

Advocates of the plan say the women get too close to the fighting, but the US army, facing problems with recruitment, was opposed to the move.


No front line

Women who serve in the US army are barred from fighting on the front line under rules drawn up by the Pentagon a decade ago.

But in Iraq, the US is fighting an insurgency - which means there is no front line.

About 9,000 women are serving in Iraq and 35 have been killed.

Combat can happen anywhere at any time, and women have frequently been caught up in it.

Republican committee members wanted to pass a measure which would keep women out of units "forward support companies" in the army, closing off jobs which provide maintenance, medical services or supplies to the front line.

The army is deeply opposed to the measure.
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4560847.stm

Actually, I agree with IceTea.
It's better to send them in the battlefield...It's one thing that America's doing some good to the world by getting rid of them.

As for women, Well, if they feel like 'fighting for their country' as America puts it, then let them do it. They're all fighting for a wrong cause anyhow, but there's obviously no room for thinking if you're in the army.
The thread is not about combat in Iraq. It's about the army and roles within it.

Have you ever been invaded, Slowth ?

Have you ever been invaded, Slowth ?
BHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!

You're gonna make me wee.. :hyper:

Everytime I look at the title and see "soft" and "invade men" I can't help laughing.. I thought it was just me and my corrupt mind.

:omg:

Beat me woody. Gently.

No women in combat, though. Thank goodness.

What ? What world do you live on ?


Female fighter pilot drops 'Die Saddam' bombs

"When Thumper flies an F-16, she flies solo, acting as pilot, navigator and bombardier.

Thumper's first mission in the war on Iraq was on March 20, the day the war started.

"Thumper" has flown more than 30 combat missions since the start of the war.

"We went up into northern Iraq in support of some of the Army forces, and they were calling us in ... to put the bombs on a road intersection which was right in the middle of an engagement they were having with the enemy."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.thumper/index.html


Or do you define "combat" as only "hand-to-hand" fighting ?

Pinky,
Women can't take the trauma of combat because of their emotional fragility, and homosexuality being the frown it is, faces some difficulties that makes it grow the same emotional fragility.


Keep in mind that it is one of the few chances for lesbians to legally shoot men.

Keep in mind that it is one of the few chances for lesbians to legally shoot men.
:hyper: :hyper:

^Get use to his senseless grammar otherwise you'll start pulling your hair out

"are a soft guys" !?
the whole title is wrong

Let's have some respect and be more mature when we talk to people.
I type my posts in words first to have their grammar and spelling checked, yet my posts are always full of typos and grammatical mistakes.
Let's be more professional!

Let's have some respect and be more mature when we talk to people.
I type my posts in words first to have their grammar and spelling checked, yet my posts are always full of typos and grammatical mistakes.
Let's be more professional!
I agree. The title should be more professional. :)

The way a title is worded makes or breaks a thread.

Here, and no offense to the thread starter, as I've come across worse titles, one has to adopt a "guessing" approach.

The whole notion of gay=soft is wrong, it's a sexual preference and it doesn't necessarily mean that because one is gay then he must be soft, and visa versa , just because a man is soft does not necessarily mean that he has to be gay.

Anyways I don't think sexual orientation matters when it comes to these things, as long as he has the ability to fight then he should be allowed to do so, whether he is gay or not.

Same applies to women.

This misunderstanding is all in all came from the stupid notion we have in Oman and many other eastern societies that gay is the one who plays the passive role, or the dominated and so since he is replacing the woman then he is assumed to be effeminate and soft.

It is saddening that while homosexuality is looked upon as a degrading state that would take one to the lowest reaches of a society, we have guys who are proud of playing the active role on other guys. What a stupid and non-sensual attitude we have!

I think D_S is worried that the mighty mujahideen can't resist the gay soldiers.

what a stupid and absurd contribution! You are a grownup guy, so act like one!

This misunderstanding is all in all came from the stupid notion we have in Oman and many other eastern societies that gay is the one who plays the passive role, or the dominated and so since he is replacing the woman then he is assumed to be effeminate and soft.

Not just Oman and Eastern cultures either.

Not all gay guys are great at decorating and throwing "fabulous" parties and not all lesbians have very short hair and dress like guys.

For every gay "submissive" partner in a relationship it stands to reason that there'd be a gay "dominant" partner. Maybe their preferred relationship is based on mutual respect - just like heterosexuals could do.

^Get use to his senseless grammar otherwise you'll start pulling your hair out




Ya`Basha !

My grammar is not important here ;) What is more important to me is catching your eye :rn: If the whole topic was important at all, I wouldn't have managed 31 posters let alone more than 190 viewers here !

1st let me thank those who understood what I meant in the first place ;) I know they mean what they say, and in particular lover2007 especially for going far and explaining that:

"This misunderstanding is all in all came from the stupid notion we have in Oman and many other eastern societies that gay is the one who plays the passive role, or the dominated and so since he is replacing the woman then he is assumed to be effeminate and soft."


I must admit. According to my background that is exactly where my inspiration came from, but not 'stupidity' ya`Akhy. In Oman every boy is expected and encouraged to be an examplary of a fit-man, Mugabish as opposed to Blarish, to grow to the meaning of the word-man. Particularly in the interior societies where I belong, elsewhere I don't know and we leave room, there, for the Anthropologist to earn their bread :cute:

If I have offended you; Ya`Basha - MorphaKnight, Ya`yasirb51 please accept my hearty apology. I didn't realise we had you on-board.

And - and - and the reason I've posted this wretched post here is because I'd had sort of a shock, like sort of :omg: Iraq and Afghanistan a 4th Army in the World and Mujaheedin sons of the defeaters of the Britishers in the 1800s AD, both have been invaded and defeated respectively ? So badly beaten by an ARMY of LESBIANs and GAYs ? ! :omg:

All of you here have missed the point except a few of you ! I can tell what sort of people got my point but then allowed themselves to drift along with those who didn't.

Anyway I just wonder what history is going to say about the defeated guys here. I can not remember reading anywhere else of a perfect ARMY that was beaten by a bunch of GAY and LESBIANs :duh:


Back to the point. Did the top US Brass guys know in the first place that they were having gays and lesbians on board ? Is it that difficult to detect these defects at first sight :p

At least I can tell by observation, with my naked-eye, I know of a Phillipino and he is proud of being called, not by his name, but BuQ`LAA ! meaning Khanith. Frankly speaking in my society we don't encourage such characters.

I wouldn't trust these guys with sentry's duty, they could easily fall on conflict of interests at my exbence !

You ALL perhaps didn't read the link i've given ? Some of you have given us lecture and some have attempted to analysed what a gay or lesbian is. That is not what the link is about ;)

Now. Get back to work. What is the history going to reveal in 15 years from now, bearing in mind that the occupation force says it is not IRAQIS confronting them, but foreigners like al-Qaeda etc :rolleyes:

What is US Army trying to hide ?






.

I somehow feel that you didn't REALLY read the link.

The link is about Discrimination within the army.

The argument in the article is "If the army didn't want gay soldiers before, why are they closing one eye now? So it's ok for gays to be in the military when the country needs them but not when they are not at war?"

THAT is what the article is about, which is by the way reflecting a gay rights group's call.

Now, you either just suddenly realised that some men in the military may be gay, or you are twisting the real topic of discussion...

but then again, your grammar is an issue because your question doesn't make sense. People tried to MAKE sense out of it, that's the only reason there are any replies at all.

I somehow feel that you didn't REALLY read the link.

The link is about Discrimination within the army.

The argument in the article is "If the army didn't want gay soldiers before, why are they closing one eye now? So it's ok for gays to be in the military when the country needs them but not when they are not at war?"

THAT is what the article is about, which is by the way reflecting a gay rights group's call.

Now, you either just suddenly realised that some men in the military may be gay, or you are twisting the real topic of discussion...

but then again, your grammar is an issue because your question doesn't make sense. People tried to MAKE sense out of it, that's the only reason there are any replies at all.



Thank you. Point taken. Discrimination etc has been discussed extensively elsewhere.

15 years from now, what the history is going to say of those Armies that have been defeated by these gays and lesbians ?





.

Thank you. Point taken. Discrimination etc has been discussed extensively elsewhere.

15 years from now, what the history is going to say of those Armies that have been defeated by these gays and lesbians ?





.
:hyper:

My goodness you're killing me..

Here is what they'll say: "Darn! We should have had more lesbians and gays in our armies. If only we'd thought of it sooner!"

Here is what they'll say: "Darn! We should have had more lesbians and gays in our armies. If only we'd thought of it sooner!"





According to our societies, the fact that the IRAQI army might have been defeated by an Army consisted of sexual defected elements, If so - :

Namra 1. That is the-mother of all humiliations.

Namra 2. I wonder whether the detainees stripped off naked at Abu_Ghuraib was the work of these elements and what they were looking for ? Was US Army conducting some reasearch and these guys only task is in relation to this kind as opposed to actual combat ?

You know better I guess



:rn:

Namra 1. It won't be humiliating if your societies woke up and smelt the coffee. Sexuality has nothing to do with physical strength. I'm sure most of those around you know this, but maybe you haven't realised it yet. :p

Namra 2: Do you have inside intel on these so called soldiers' sexuality that we don't know about yet?

Only the presence of lesbians and gays in the invading forces is a shocking reality. Prior to invasion of Keywait by the Iraqi forces, we used to hear Iraqi Army was the 4th largest Army in the World. We heard that they could sweep all the Armies on the Arabian Peninsulla in matter of days.

That, then in 2003 the Iraqi Army is invaded by the Army of Lesbians and Gays and it's President HELPQ is hanged.

Amesing ! Lesbians and Gays occupy a country whose Army is the 4th on planet mother earth ?

Not only that, but the gays and lesbians orders detainees of the 4th Army on earth to strip off naked and 'men' are made to pile on top of each other forming pyramidal shape ?

Humiliation - humiliation - mother of all humiliations. Doesn't gays and lesbians abide by the so-called: Geneva Convention ?

Do you really believe IRAQIS shall forget ?


Wallahy !




.

But D_S those are some bad dudes ...

http://divedesk.com/blog/is07/village-people.jpg

Since when wars are done with genitalia now
2 pages of nothing nihil nada

Since when wars are done with genitalia now
2 pages of nothing nihil nada
Appearantly, at first DS talks about how is it possible that gays can 'invade men' (lol), you know, like homosexuality was invented in 2003. Then he says Iraqis should be ashamed that gays and women are among the force that beat their dictator into the ground. And then he goes on to say that the Abu graib episode was because they were gay.

Can you see the pattern?

Next, he'll be telling us that the Denmark cartoonists were also gay. You know. Just to stoke that little fire inside.

Why should sexuality have any bearing on one's ability in combat?

Sloath, if you are implying that gay men are "soft", so can't fight in a war .. then how do women go to combat?

You might like to know that the article has nothing to do with one's ability to fight, but rather a matter of (or claiming to be of) discrimination. :p

Well ethically why should gays go to war . To Free other gays in the country . Their perception is Fame and glory and that could not be found ( in their little sick mind) in a war ... Unless they are there for their own entertainment or better chances with same sex :6: :6:

Gay rights are like women rights. They only exist in the news and the pentagon would be completely stupid to make it newsworthy. You should fulfill your responsibilities before asking for any 'rights' ...

Well ethically why should gays go to war . To Free other gays in the country . Their perception is Fame and glory and that could not be found ( in their little sick mind) in a war ... Unless they are there for their own entertainment or better chances with same sex :6: :6:
You're gonna need to put a little punctuation in your posts if you want them to make sense.

And maybe, your post having something to do with the one you quote, might also help.

Yes Fengy, a little English lesson from you is highly appriciated ..

Shhhhh its a secret tactic. When the war is not going in their favour they are going to let loose these guys....











http://www.amroholidays.com/images/prides/sydney_mardi_gras_lineup.jpg

Sorry couldn't help myself.

It's not an issue of whether gays can fight.

It's an issue of how confusion of sexual identity affects masculinity. And fighting is certainly a masculine endeavor. That's why men commit so many violent crimes and women so few...

Ideology makes us BLIND...

The "primitive Arabs" have the better of you in this argument, Fengy.

whether gays are "soft" or "tough", i hate them all ! my opinion..

Jeff,

I am not entirely sure I understand your last post

PS On a Condescending scale, where do you rate the following: "The "primitive Arabs" have the better of you in this argument, Fengy."

if those gays/lesbians can carry a weapon and fight then no one can stop them from going out there and being involved in a war.

whether gays are "soft" or "tough", i hate them all ! my opinion..

do you hate them like hitler hated them? is that what you mean?

^Hitler hated gays too?
Well, that's probably the one good thing about him I guess...

i'm not hitler..i just hate them!

Why, did you have a bad experience with them ?

Why, did you have a bad experience with them ?
Why, are you gay ?

Why, are you looking ?

Why, are you looking ?
For the reason that's made you do this big of a mess ? ... Yeah

You might want to buy a one way ticket to SFO...

That should satisfy your urges.

Jeff,

I am not entirely sure I understand your last post

PS On a Condescending scale, where do you rate the following: "The "primitive Arabs" have the better of you in this argument, Fengy."

If there's something you don't understand, ask away! The comment you extracted just means that I agree with the general Sabla attitude toward homosexuality and not in general with what I understand to be Fengy's approach.

But who is condescending to whom?

Traditional Christian, Jewish and Muslim understanding of homosexuality sees it as ranging from moral weakness to grossly sinful behavior. Modern "enlightened" Western ideology regards this traditional understanding as either woefully ignorant and in need of education or else cruel and vicious. This is where the condescension originally come in, I would say.

I disagree with these notions. I think the traditional attitude is right and the modern secular one is arrant nonsense. Another example of Islamic countries today being more civilized than secularized Western ones.

Fengy, whom I love and admire, disagree strongly on this one.

Jeff

Re-read the thread

It is about gays in the army

It is not about a general attitude to homosexuality

Some people do not approve of homosexuals in the army

Some do not see a problem with it

Some people are confused as to how a gay man would be capable of fighting because they are 'soft'

Some are ashamed that an army can de defeated by another army which may have a couple of gays in it

There was even one person who believed that no woman has ever fought in combat - but that was easily squashed

Fengy and others have (rightly) pointed out one's sexuality is not the determining factor as top one's physical strength......to say nothing of mental fortitude and the ability to hold a weapon.......

Fengy also politely pointed out the interesting implication from Slowth that Aby Ghraib was caused by homosexuals........she wondered why anyone would be ashamed of being beaten by an army where maybe 1 percent (my words) are gay?

In today's world, the facts are that being a homosexual does not bar you from joining the military

The facts are that homosexuals and women have been in combat for centuries

I do not see where Fengy's views on the facts have been 'bested'

I have also not seen a single post from her on this thread which deals with the bigger question of what her attitiiude is to homosexuals per se

PS In my humble opinion, your statement was very condescending

You might want to buy a one way ticket to SFO...

That should satisfy your urges.
LoooL .. Good one