Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I would never ask another man if he were gay and I wouldn't want him to tell me if he were, either. What people do in their privacy is none of my business and I don't want to know.

I personally don't care if someone's straight or gay. That's their business. Far as I'm concerned, a service member is a service member, and I'll thank anyone who has served for their service.

for the record I have not been a part of any branch of service, I'm the son of a 20 yr service vet and a brother of active duty service men


I think this is bad, I also think it has little or nothing to do w/ gay rights.

There are 2 goals here

1. Public acceptance..ie gay does not equal not normal or not wrong, or not moral or not a sin.... this agenda has been brewing for quite some time this is the first real victory in that battle,

2. Changing our miltary

make no mistake about it, a good number of chaplins, senior NCO's, and a good portion of Brass will leave over this, also it will prevent many from enlisting...this ruling makes our miltary weaker....there are far too many that want to see that

this ruling w/ change the make up of the men and women that contuine to serve and choose to serve in the future....I do not think that it will be changed for the better

jaywade wrote:2. Changing our miltary

make no mistake about it, a good number of chaplins, senior NCO's, and a good portion of Brass will leave over this, also it will prevent many from enlisting...this ruling makes our miltary weaker....there are far too many that want to see that

this ruling w/ change the make up of the men and women that contuine to serve and choose to serve in the future....I do not think that it will be changed for the better

I think you are correct. Changing the military is the name of the game. Let's face facts - most progressives are anti war and pro tolerant. They not only push tolerance in this country but around the world. They see no need for a strong military...give peace a chance and all that good stuff...I dont necessarily agree with everything our government has sent our troops off to do, but I see this as a weakening and not a good idea.

Leave the DADT in place. IMHO anyone who wants to truly serve our country should be given the opportunity to do so without reprisal...on the same subject, others should have the chance to raise their children without having them constantly exposed to the gay agenda if they so choose and also without fear of reprisal...equal rights and all that, right...

zephyp wrote:others should have the chance to raise their children without having them constantly exposed to the gay agenda if they so choose and also without fear of reprisal...

BINGO! This statement goes along with so many other social issues now facing our society. Just replace "gay agenda" with any other "Progressive" movement of your choice.

All this is going to do is create a bunch of hate crimes within the military. They happen now, but just think how many will occur now that people can walk around openly gay.

I have no problems with gays at all. Buuuut, there are different scenarios....

What if you are stuck somewhere where all you have is an open bay shower system. You are in there taking a shower, in walks the gay guy of the company and is showering next to you...... you are paranoid and think he is trying to take a peek at your junk, lol. Someone is getting an @ss whoopin. I see it now.... "But Sarge, he was staring at my junk in the shower..."

Or you get stuck with an openly gay person as a room mate. Things are going to get heated and blow up.

Realistically, most of them probably just want to serve their country. That's fine. Though it is the overly flamboyant ones that worry me. In the end though, they are Americans and they deserve at least the chance to do right by their country. Their choice of partners is irrelevant to their ability to operate, maintain, and accurately fire a rifle.

Unkn0wN wrote:All this is going to do is create a bunch of hate crimes within the military. They happen now, but just think how many will occur now that people can walk around openly gay.

I have no problems with gays at all. Buuuut, there are different scenarios....

What if you are stuck somewhere where all you have is an open bay shower system. You are in there taking a shower, in walks the gay guy of the company and is showering next to you...... you are paranoid and think he is trying to take a peek at your junk, lol. Someone is getting an @ss whoopin. I see it now.... "But Sarge, he was staring at my junk in the shower..."

Or you get stuck with an openly gay person as a room mate. Things are going to get heated and blow up.

Paranoia and hetero insecurity FTW! I'm still not sure why all these heteros somehow think the homos are out to get them. Who knows, perhaps I'm just a little more secure than others. So, are our ranks that full of criminals or something? I mean, hate crimes are crimes.

I think dropping don't ask, don't tell is a step forward. I simply don't think that dropping it during a time of war was such a brilliant idea. Then again, I don't think our lawmakers have had many brilliant ideas lately. And that is another topic altogether...

Tell me which one of these soldiers is gay?.



Give up?. I can't tell either.

Sotiris wrote:Realistically, most of them probably just want to serve their country. That's fine. Though it is the overly flamboyant ones that worry me. In the end though, they are Americans and they deserve at least the chance to do right by their country. Their choice of partners is irrelevant to their ability to operate, maintain, and accurately fire a rifle.

The overly flamboyant ones are not the ones joining and in all likelihood will not if gays are allowed in and allowed to be open about it. The truly flaming ones will still work as hair dressers and interior designers, they're jut not cut out to be in the military.

Jim

OakRidgeStars wrote:Tell me which one of these soldiers is gay?.



Give up?. I can't tell either.

I never said they can't be good soldiers/airmen/marines, whatever, but this is just going to create more problems within the military. Like I said, I have no problems with gays, you may not have problems with it, your neighbors might not have problems with it, but the majority will and a lot of people are going to get hurt physically and mentally with the policy no longer in place. This will do our military more harm than good.

chfaunce wrote:So, are our ranks that full of criminals or something? I mean, hate crimes are crimes.

I can only speak about the Army, because that's where my experience comes from.

They are not full of criminals, but there's a good amount. Mostly drug related and gang related.

Unkn0wN wrote:,... but the majority will and a lot of people are going to get hurt physically and mentally with the policy no longer in place. This will do our military more harm than good.

Really? I mean, the majority of people on this forum, sure. I'll buy that. But the majority, nation-wide? Citation needed, please.

My only input is that the vast majority of current servicemen are against it. That is good enough reason for me be against open sodomites in the military. It is also good enough reason for anti-American libtards to attempt to force this on our volunteer military servicemen. What have they done but harm, hinder and criticize our military volunteers? Not a damned thing in my lifetime.

Say I am a straight man in the .mil. Why can I not have the right to shower/bunk with females now? They may be uncomfortable, knowing I would be looking at them and I prefer to sexate them? Why is that sufficient for them but not me? Put the sodomites in with the females? Now, I have motivation to declare my love for the hairy man hole, just to get this "special" treatment. Heeyyyy laaadieeeez!

I have no problem with sodomites, nor do I feel threatened by them. I personally consider anyone finding me attractive a compliment. As an airline pile it, I have much experience in constant close quarters with open sodomites. Of course, not sleeping/showering, like a .mil man would have. If there was to be unwanted (any) comments or more (there never were), I would state that I don't desire nor accept that, and assume it would or make it stop. That is no different than how attractive women must handle the attention of men everyday. I am not more special or in need of more protection than they are afforded, plus I have the added benefit of nearly never being at a physical disadvantage should I be forced to ward of aggressive advances.

I cannot see how there is any benefit to a straight person in the .mil, but clearly the libertards do not care about them. How about a compromise.

During WWII, there were all Japanese units and at least one all black air unit. This worked fine, and they brought much honor to themselves. It is at least a temporary, test bed measure that is hard to find fault with, except for those whose goals are not being openly shared (anti-American, anti military).

chfaunce wrote:

Unkn0wN wrote:,... but the majority will and a lot of people are going to get hurt physically and mentally with the policy no longer in place. This will do our military more harm than good.

Really? I mean, the majority of people on this forum, sure. I'll buy that. But the majority, nation-wide? Citation needed, please.

There is ample evidence that the current /mil volunteers don't want openly gay servicemen. If you mean the majority of non-military, then I don't know and I don't think it matters. It certainly is not more important than those who will have their lives altered by this change.

I wonder if women that are enlisted are this worried about closet lesbians... Mmmmm, lesbians in uniform

Anyway, I guess I'm the only one that sees the irony in a soldier not being afraid to go up against an enemy where the risk is death, but a gay in the ranks? ZOMG! Scary scary very scary! I mean, really?