The SAS -The Special Arse Service?

Can queers be counted on to be competent combatants in a crisis?

Gays can now serve in the armed forces, although I can't see that many homosexual men would sign up voluntarily because they tend to like their creature comforts and don't like getting dirty, so a career as a soldier, for example, would not appeal to them.

But what about those gays that do sign up?

In a conflict zone a gay might refuse to wear battle fatigue because khaki doesn't suit his complexion or may refuse to black up because he doesn't put anything on his face unless it comes out of jar with ‘Nivea' written on it.

More seriously, he might refuse to shoot an enemy soldier if he looks 'cute'.

On the other hand, gays should be allowed to serve because in times of war, while normal men are fighting and dying for their country, homosexual men cannot be allowed to sit at home, quaffing Bailey's over ice and scoffing prawn vol-au-vents while watching The Sound of Music for the thousandth time.

The above post was not intended to be offensive or obtuse, by the way, sorry if it turned out that way regardless.

It's just that I am not sure whether or not the armed forces should be exempted from civilian equality concerns.

At 7/7/2011 5:53:38 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Can queers be counted on to be competent combatants in a crisis?

Gays can now serve in the armed forces, although I can't see that many homosexual men would sign up voluntarily because they tend to like their creature comforts and don't like getting dirty, so a career as a soldier, for example, would not appeal to them.

But what about those gays that do sign up?

In a conflict zone a gay might refuse to wear battle fatigue because khaki doesn't suit his complexion or may refuse to black up because he doesn't put anything on his face unless it comes out of jar with ‘Nivea' written on it.

More seriously, he might refuse to shoot an enemy soldier if he looks 'cute'.

On the other hand, gays should be allowed to serve because in times of war, while normal men are fighting and dying for their country, homosexual men cannot be allowed to sit at home, quaffing Bailey's over ice and scoffing prawn vol-au-vents while watching The Sound of Music for the thousandth time.

While I appreciate your satirical sense of humor I fear that the typical unfunny right-winger will take your comments to heart in a quite literal-minded and serious fashion, i.e. he may actually think that you're on the same macho-homophobic page with him.

At 7/7/2011 1:27:26 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
The above post was not intended to be offensive or obtuse, by the way, sorry if it turned out that way regardless.

It's just that I am not sure whether or not the armed forces should be exempted from civilian equality concerns.

The problem is that people are hopelessly immature about such things. The purpose of the military is to kill (in simple terms). Generals are managers paid to manage a killing machine, leave it down to them.

That was some sweet alliteration there.

How do you recruit the gays but ?

Men, lots and lots of men.

The Few !!! The Proud !!! the FABULOUS !!!

At 7/7/2011 1:27:26 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
The above post was not intended to be offensive or obtuse, by the way, sorry if it turned out that way regardless.

It's just that I am not sure whether or not the armed forces should be exempted from civilian equality concerns.

Whether intentional or otherwise, you've made your cuntishness known in this thread. Feel free to stop.

Actually, whether your post is satirical or not Brian, Charles has a point. Touting opinions like that are all good and well except when there's the chance someone will not only agree, but do so with such vigour that you'll wonder if they aren't just wallowing in a pit of egotistical self-loathing (See Exhibit A: Kanye West) or, failing that, they just really don't like the idea of beng physically or in any other way inferior to someone that would probably be able to beat them up and then do them in the butt. (See Exhibit B: Every high school kid in the last decade or so, also several notable mentions go to particular sects of the Xbox Live community, the far right, one or two groups of old guard military enthusiast and veterans, and so on)

Of course failing that, an entire army of homosexuals would at least scare the everloving sh*t out of anyand all middle eastern enemies ever. "Hello Mahmoud...this here is Charlie...Charlie has a nine inch cock...and unless you tell us everything...he's gonna stick it in your butt"

Australian Secret Service:

A.S.S.

Brian, your post is too hateful to qualify as a serious intellectual inquiry, but I understand your question.

Gay men definitely tend to have a feminine disposition, but being feminine =/= being averse to violence. In my experience, I've seen just as many physically aggressive gay men as straight men (proportionally speaking). And that catty attitude of theirs can escalate quite quickly on occasion.

At any rate, the fact that we have a women's branch of armed services renders the entire thread pretty much dead anyway.

At 7/9/2011 9:40:46 AM, Lasagna wrote:

Gay men definitely tend to have a feminine disposition, but being feminine =/= being averse to violence. In my experience, I've seen just as many physically aggressive gay men as straight men (proportionally speaking). And that catty attitude of theirs can escalate quite quickly on occasion.

PFFFFFTHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wow..

Someone's buying into hollywood stereotypes a little too eagerly. Homosexuals exist as both the feminine and the burly, just the same as straight women, straight men, and gay women.

Hell, get a regiment of bear-like homosexuals and watch the taliban flee for their lives.

At 7/7/2011 4:03:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That was some sweet alliteration there.

Thanks R_R - that was the real point of the thread and I tried to justify it with some old rubbish - it didn't work and I wish I could delete it - apologies for any offense caused and I will accept Veridas' invitation to stop posting such nonsense in the future.

Thanks also to Charles for your observations - you are quite right.

This was not my finest hour on DDO.

At 7/9/2011 3:29:44 PM, Veridas wrote:

At 7/9/2011 9:40:46 AM, Lasagna wrote:

Gay men definitely tend to have a feminine disposition, but being feminine =/= being averse to violence. In my experience, I've seen just as many physically aggressive gay men as straight men (proportionally speaking). And that catty attitude of theirs can escalate quite quickly on occasion.

PFFFFFTHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wow..

Someone's buying into hollywood stereotypes a little too eagerly. Homosexuals exist as both the feminine and the burly, just the same as straight women, straight men, and gay women.

Hell, get a regiment of bear-like homosexuals and watch the taliban flee for their lives.

Get a regiment of the most gay men on the planet and tell them to chase after the taliban in bunny costumes. Bam, no more taliban.

At 7/8/2011 3:32:30 PM, Veridas wrote:
Actually, whether your post is satirical or not Brian, Charles has a point. Touting opinions like that are all good and well except when there's the chance someone will not only agree, but do so with such vigour that you'll wonder if they aren't just wallowing in a pit of egotistical self-loathing (See Exhibit A: Kanye West) or, failing that, they just really don't like the idea of beng physically or in any other way inferior to someone that would probably be able to beat them up and then do them in the butt. (See Exhibit B: Every high school kid in the last decade or so, also several notable mentions go to particular sects of the Xbox Live community, the far right, one or two groups of old guard military enthusiast and veterans, and so on)

Of course failing that, an entire army of homosexuals would at least scare the everloving sh*t out of anyand all middle eastern enemies ever. "Hello Mahmoud...this here is Charlie...Charlie has a nine inch cock...and unless you tell us everything...he's gonna stick it in your butt"

Come back when you've found a sense of humor, you overly sensitive pr­ick.

i think we should ban him.

At 7/10/2011 4:53:27 PM, el-badgero wrote:
i think we should ban him.

brian that is. and kenyon too the little bitch.

I think we should ban the guy who posts after me...

aw damit

At 7/10/2011 4:42:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 7/8/2011 3:32:30 PM, Veridas wrote:
Actually, whether your post is satirical or not Brian, Charles has a point. Touting opinions like that are all good and well except when there's the chance someone will not only agree, but do so with such vigour that you'll wonder if they aren't just wallowing in a pit of egotistical self-loathing (See Exhibit A: Kanye West) or, failing that, they just really don't like the idea of beng physically or in any other way inferior to someone that would probably be able to beat them up and then do them in the butt. (See Exhibit B: Every high school kid in the last decade or so, also several notable mentions go to particular sects of the Xbox Live community, the far right, one or two groups of old guard military enthusiast and veterans, and so on)

Of course failing that, an entire army of homosexuals would at least scare the everloving sh*t out of anyand all middle eastern enemies ever. "Hello Mahmoud...this here is Charlie...Charlie has a nine inch cock...and unless you tell us everything...he's gonna stick it in your butt"

Come back when you've found a sense of humor, you overly sensitive pr­ick.

PMS

In all seriousness though, I don't understand the logic behind using "military readiness" as to disallow homosexuals in the military, if the argument would never work for any private business.

If a business stated that they don't hire females or homosexuals since is would effect "business readienss" and teamwork, I'm quite certain the business would get there arses sued.

That's some major hypocrisy.

At 7/10/2011 9:30:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
In all seriousness though, I don't understand the logic behind using "military readiness" as to disallow homosexuals in the military, if the argument would never work for any private business.

Well, there are the concerns of what would happen if homosexual romantic relations were brought into combat zones since romantic relations in combat zones are unpredictable and potentially dangerous to morale and order within units.

However I'm not so sure where I stand on the issue, due to the fact that I have a handful of miltary officers in my family who sway my opinion from the majority when it comes to these issues.

At 7/11/2011 1:07:12 AM, quarterexchange wrote:

At 7/10/2011 9:30:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
In all seriousness though, I don't understand the logic behind using "military readiness" as to disallow homosexuals in the military, if the argument would never work for any private business.

Well, there are the concerns of what would happen if homosexual romantic relations were brought into combat zones since romantic relations in combat zones are unpredictable and potentially dangerous to morale and order within units.

However I'm not so sure where I stand on the issue, due to the fact that I have a handful of miltary officers in my family who sway my opinion from the majority when it comes to these issues.

But we let men and women together in spaceships...

At 7/11/2011 1:16:37 AM, Rockylightning wrote:

At 7/11/2011 1:07:12 AM, quarterexchange wrote:

At 7/10/2011 9:30:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
In all seriousness though, I don't understand the logic behind using "military readiness" as to disallow homosexuals in the military, if the argument would never work for any private business.

Well, there are the concerns of what would happen if homosexual romantic relations were brought into combat zones since romantic relations in combat zones are unpredictable and potentially dangerous to morale and order within units.

However I'm not so sure where I stand on the issue, due to the fact that I have a handful of miltary officers in my family who sway my opinion from the majority when it comes to these issues.

But we let men and women together in spaceships...

When we weaponize spaceships you'll have a point.

Again, there is a concern that romantic relations between combatants in a warzone may become unpredictable, volatile, and detrimental to morale and order.

Your statement regarding spaceships is completely irrelevant.

At 7/11/2011 1:20:20 AM, quarterexchange wrote:

At 7/11/2011 1:16:37 AM, Rockylightning wrote:

At 7/11/2011 1:07:12 AM, quarterexchange wrote:

At 7/10/2011 9:30:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
In all seriousness though, I don't understand the logic behind using "military readiness" as to disallow homosexuals in the military, if the argument would never work for any private business.

Well, there are the concerns of what would happen if homosexual romantic relations were brought into combat zones since romantic relations in combat zones are unpredictable and potentially dangerous to morale and order within units.

However I'm not so sure where I stand on the issue, due to the fact that I have a handful of miltary officers in my family who sway my opinion from the majority when it comes to these issues.

But we let men and women together in spaceships...

When we weaponize spaceships you'll have a point.

Again, there is a concern that romantic relations between combatants in a warzone may become unpredictable, volatile, and detrimental to morale and order.

Your statement regarding spaceships is completely irrelevant.

I believe there is more risk involved in space than in the military.
Romantic relations on spaceships can be dangerous as well. Especially on long missions where crew are in tight quarters with the opposite gender.

At 7/11/2011 2:28:11 AM, Rockylightning wrote:

At 7/11/2011 1:20:20 AM, quarterexchange wrote:

At 7/11/2011 1:16:37 AM, Rockylightning wrote:

At 7/11/2011 1:07:12 AM, quarterexchange wrote:

At 7/10/2011 9:30:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
In all seriousness though, I don't understand the logic behind using "military readiness" as to disallow homosexuals in the military, if the argument would never work for any private business.

Well, there are the concerns of what would happen if homosexual romantic relations were brought into combat zones since romantic relations in combat zones are unpredictable and potentially dangerous to morale and order within units.

However I'm not so sure where I stand on the issue, due to the fact that I have a handful of miltary officers in my family who sway my opinion from the majority when it comes to these issues.

But we let men and women together in spaceships...

When we weaponize spaceships you'll have a point.

Again, there is a concern that romantic relations between combatants in a warzone may become unpredictable, volatile, and detrimental to morale and order.

Your statement regarding spaceships is completely irrelevant.

I believe there is more risk involved in space than in the military.
Romantic relations on spaceships can be dangerous as well. Especially on long missions where crew are in tight quarters with the opposite gender.

Not in a combat zone.

At 7/10/2011 4:42:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 7/8/2011 3:32:30 PM, Veridas wrote:
Actually, whether your post is satirical or not Brian, Charles has a point. Touting opinions like that are all good and well except when there's the chance someone will not only agree, but do so with such vigour that you'll wonder if they aren't just wallowing in a pit of egotistical self-loathing (See Exhibit A: Kanye West) or, failing that, they just really don't like the idea of beng physically or in any other way inferior to someone that would probably be able to beat them up and then do them in the butt. (See Exhibit B: Every high school kid in the last decade or so, also several notable mentions go to particular sects of the Xbox Live community, the far right, one or two groups of old guard military enthusiast and veterans, and so on)

Of course failing that, an entire army of homosexuals would at least scare the everloving sh*t out of anyand all middle eastern enemies ever. "Hello Mahmoud...this here is Charlie...Charlie has a nine inch cock...and unless you tell us everything...he's gonna stick it in your butt"

Come back when you've found a sense of humor, you overly sensitive pr­ick.

Mmm, yes, because I totally didn't mock rappers, republicans, e-thugs and terrorists in that post now, did I?

The phrase. "No u" springs to mind.