Question US

Which is worse: Gays in the Military or Neo-Nazi's in the Military??

Torchy June 15, 2009 19:11:35

After going through some poll questions on here and debating/arguing, this thought came to my head: we have "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" still firmly in place...yet our military would hand over weapons to gang members and the KKK? Is it better or worse to have homosexuals or criminals in our military?

"Since the launch of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. military has struggled to recruit and reenlist troops. As the conflicts have dragged on, the military has loosened regulations, issuing "moral waivers" in many cases, allowing even those with criminal records to join up. Veterans suffering post-traumatic stress disorder have been ordered back to the Middle East for second and third tours of duty."*

If we are so desperate for troops, why not allow someone who is of sane mind to join regardless of sexuality and openness about it instead of someone who will use the Military as a breeding ground for criminal and gang activity? Am I the only one seeing very little sense to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when this is knowingly going on?

*cite: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/15/neo_nazis_army/
Allowing Homosexuals (openly) in the Military is worse because...
Allowing Neo-Nazi's/Gang Members in the Military is worse because...
Neither should be allowed in...
Both should be allowed in...
Hell if I know!
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Comment
  • +7 raves Disko Pickle June 16, 2009 03:27:13
    Disko Pickle

    Hell if I know!

    I think the worst option would be allowing Neo-Nazi's to perform in Broadway musicals.
    View thread
Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Comments
  • Nate November 10, 2009 19:26:49
    Nate

    Hell if I know!

    gay nazis in the army is worst
  • brotherplease September 06, 2009 21:05:31
    brotherplease

    Allowing Neo-Nazi's/Gang Members in the Military is worse because...

    Neo-Nazis do not represent American Ideals.
  • Smashing Pumpkins #1 Fan July 18, 2009 22:21:45
    Smashing Pumpkins #1 Fan

    Both should be allowed in...

    because the u.s. kinda stinks
  • +2 raves
    bookwormtammy July 17, 2009 15:18:39
    bookwormtammy

    Hell if I know!

    I do think it is silly that we don't allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality in the military. It does seem crazy that we allow those who have a criminal record in because we are so desperate yet we do not allow those who's sexual preference is seen as some sort of threat.

    That said. It isn't like they are taking our most violent of criminals out of jail before they have served their sentence. We are talking about people who have already served their time. Which means they have paid their debt to society. If we are so desperate why not use them both?
  • Brian July 08, 2009 18:08:57
    Brian

    Neither should be allowed in...

    They are the same to me, Degenerates !!! like Zuggi the scum bag, what a wast of O2
  • +2 raves
    elwood July 03, 2009 19:52:27
    elwood

    Allowing Homosexuals (openly) in the Military is worse because...

    Allow both along with criminals currently serving time, sentences of less than 10 years in our overloaded prison sytem for anything except child abuse of minor children by an adult and require illegal aliens to serve, transport them from capture at the border to the induction center, give each of them honorable discharges after serving 3 or more years and allow the illegal to become citizens after meeting the other requirements. It would solve a multitude of problems.
  • +5 raves
    Kevin June 21, 2009 17:11:02
    Kevin

    Allowing Neo-Nazi's/Gang Members in the Military is worse because...

    Being in the Army I seen some gay people but you know what I found out... Just because somebody is gay doesn't mean they hit on everyone. People assume that if there's a gay guy in the room they are goin to get hit on. Reality Check: Gay people are just like straight people, would you hit on a gay person if you're straight? NO bc it's pointless and you're not into that. Same goes for a gay person. Gay people will keep to themselves if they know A) it's not your thing and B)They know it's pointless...But What I don't like is the gang members I had in bunks next to me in Basic training.
  • tewaz1 Kevin November 05, 2009 07:20:06
    tewaz1
    One of the best cures for homophobia is actually getting to know a gay person.
    It made my day to hear from someone who has had this experience.
  • +5 raves
    Andy June 19, 2009 19:04:18
    Andy

    Allowing Neo-Nazi's/Gang Members in the Military is worse because...

    Gays do'nt hurt anyone but Neo-Nazis are Rasics, Facist, Close minded, and look silghtly inbred hyperthetacly if there is a master race clearly they're not in it.
  • Nate Andy November 10, 2009 19:28:08
    Nate
    Gays can hurt you... gays hurt
  • Andy Nate November 11, 2009 19:13:36
    Andy
    following that logic you'd be asuming gays are rapest, witch they are not
  • Nate Andy November 11, 2009 19:17:21 (edited)
    Nate
    correct - probably proportionally rapist to the rest of society - but it's a damn funny picture. I was saying that cute little kitties are rapists. Of course Nazi types are more dangerous and should never be allowed in the military, they are UNAMERICAN! Remember, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL...neo-nazis are as much my enemy as islamofascists such as Al-Qaeda.
  • Andy Nate November 11, 2009 21:51:38
    Andy
    any one who kills people is bad.

    i think that, gays not being aloud in the army,
    why would you even want to be in the army ???

    i supose its all about having the choice if you want to, i nearly joined one time.... but i'm a real dumb ass
  • Nate Andy November 11, 2009 22:01:05
    Nate
    haha, no, anyone who kills people is not bad.
  • concerned June 18, 2009 00:57:03
    concerned

    Hell if I know!

    But when they are heir ..they all have one job ..and that is to protect the USA ...not be gay or Neo
  • tewaz1 concerned November 05, 2009 07:23:48
    tewaz1
    That is absolutely true, but straight people do not have to hide their orientation, they can keep pictures of their significant other, talk about them, hell, the military brings (female only) strippers to improve morale in some cases. Being open about your orientation can only positively impact your performance in protecting the U.S.
    Having to hide who you are, on the other hand, undermines your ability to bond with your fellow soldiers or act as a cohesive unit.
  • concerned tewaz1 November 06, 2009 02:24:16
    concerned
    I am for sure if any person pulls out a picture of their family members it would be okay but remeber they can always not go to the ilitary .. it is volunteer rigth now if they were drafting men and & women they would maybe have a case .. but not right now .. because they do not have to be there ..
  • +1 raves
    tewaz1 concerned November 06, 2009 04:03:18
    tewaz1
    Yes, the point is that many gay people want to go into the military, they are proud of their country and want to serve in that way. Their sexual orientation should be a non issue, but it is not. If they were to talk about their same sex partner, or show a picture of them, they would be discharged from the military.
  • concerned tewaz1 November 06, 2009 23:45:41
    concerned
    a group of stright men in a room might feel bad in the room with a man attrcted to men .. just like a stright woman might have those same feeling .. but gays only have their feeling involved .. you must also think of others .. i went to a school with gays women and stright wo,em .. and I watched alot of gay women tried to convert stright women .. sometimes by force and other times thru items and money .. but either way it was ugly .. so some stright people feel real uncofortable .. and not that they have anything against those that want to be gay ..
  • tewaz1 concerned November 07, 2009 01:38:17
    tewaz1
    Straight women are allowed in the military.
    How would gay men feel if straight women tried to hit on them, or gay women feel if straight men tried to hit on them? It goes both ways.
    Most people only bother hitting on other people if they have a chance. If they know the other person isn't interested, they usually won't bother wasting the time, energy, or risking the rejection. This actually goes doubly for gay people as they risk getting beaten up or treated with disgust if they hit on someone who isn't gay, so they are often extra careful.
    All of that aside, gay people have just as much professionalism as straight people (meaning, some do and some don't, both are just as capable of being obnoxiously inappropriate), they have a job to do. Making eyes at your teammates, straight, gay, male, or female adversely impacts performance, and any responsible human being, gay or straight, male or female will avoid it.
    To insinuate that gay people in general have less of a sense of propriety is insulting. If straight people are uncomfortable around a gay person because they are afraid of being hit on they are both full of themselves and too insecure to just say, "Sorry, I'm not interested." Both are the straight person's problem and have nothing to do with anything the gay person actually does.
    ...
    Straight women are allowed in the military.
    How would gay men feel if straight women tried to hit on them, or gay women feel if straight men tried to hit on them? It goes both ways.
    Most people only bother hitting on other people if they have a chance. If they know the other person isn't interested, they usually won't bother wasting the time, energy, or risking the rejection. This actually goes doubly for gay people as they risk getting beaten up or treated with disgust if they hit on someone who isn't gay, so they are often extra careful.
    All of that aside, gay people have just as much professionalism as straight people (meaning, some do and some don't, both are just as capable of being obnoxiously inappropriate), they have a job to do. Making eyes at your teammates, straight, gay, male, or female adversely impacts performance, and any responsible human being, gay or straight, male or female will avoid it.
    To insinuate that gay people in general have less of a sense of propriety is insulting. If straight people are uncomfortable around a gay person because they are afraid of being hit on they are both full of themselves and too insecure to just say, "Sorry, I'm not interested." Both are the straight person's problem and have nothing to do with anything the gay person actually does.
    As for your school experience, I don't know where you live, but everywhere I've been, I've seen more straight people trying to "convert" gay people. What you've described smacks of second hand demonization.
    (more)
  • concerned tewaz1 November 14, 2009 17:29:28
    concerned
    once a woman knows a man is gay she wil leave them alone .. and most stright woman do not want t gay man .. LOL you are speaking of girls not women .. You have a right to support gay rights .. but i see a much larger picture .. that also effects our childern .. it leads to confussion .. and the devil is the author of confussion
  • tewaz1 concerned November 14, 2009 17:48:20
    tewaz1
    Your use of the word confusion is ironic in the extreme.
    Try educating yourself, getting to know some gay people so that you can actually speak with knowledge.
  • concerned tewaz1 7 days ago
    concerned
    I know quite a few gay peopl .. do not dislike them .. just do not feel a need to give any extra rights in military .. all are their to fight for this country .. and if they do not like the laws they do not have to join .. it s not a draft unlike during vietnam war and others
  • tewaz1 concerned 7 days ago
    tewaz1
    How is it an extra right to be able to serve as themselves? Straight military officers are not required to hide a thing about themselves. This makes it very hard to build a team when some of the team members have to be careful about how they speak, who they speak of, etc... Those team members end up having to close themselves off from the rest of their group. They self isolate.
    Yes, they are there to serve. A part of that is building a team that can trust and depend on each other. Once a team is on the battle field, they need to know and trust each other. DADT disrupts that dynamic and puts gay service members in an unnecessarily hostile environment.
  • concerned tewaz1 4 days ago
    concerned
    right now there is nothing hostile about it .. becasue all are voluteers so if it is hostile they can truly leave .. unlike begin drafted
  • +3 raves
    Dionysus June 17, 2009 23:39:51
    Dionysus

    Allowing Neo-Nazi's/Gang Members in the Military is worse because...

    Hard to find the skin heads in the army though... they all look alike
  • +1 raves
    chaoskitty123 June 17, 2009 04:01:10
    chaoskitty123

    Hell if I know!

    The problem in relation to homosexuals is that we live in a society where men and boys are raped as well. We know it happens in our prisons and it can even happen to men in society as a whole. There are no men's movements that address this and the feminists laugh asking "what kind of a man let's himself be raped"... thought it was about power or at least that's what's said when it happens to women.

    In the same way we see the feminists speak such anger and hatred towards men concerning rape, have you ever wondered how a man would react in relation to fear or pain of being raped? And who would rape a man? Why, another man right and that means a gay man because a straight man wouldn't do this... maybe a bisexual man but still, it is a homosexual act.

    Take that knowledge and ask how a woman who hates men might react if forced into closed quarters with him and if she could keep things professional or not take things personal if he accidentally puts his arm around her reaching for something and gets too close for comfort. Then ask if women have been raped in the military... answer there is yes and the military often trys to hush it up right?? Now what if it's a man who gets raped? He's in the military... he's supposed to be macho and strong... then he's overpowered and raped... is...



    The problem in relation to homosexuals is that we live in a society where men and boys are raped as well. We know it happens in our prisons and it can even happen to men in society as a whole. There are no men's movements that address this and the feminists laugh asking "what kind of a man let's himself be raped"... thought it was about power or at least that's what's said when it happens to women.

    In the same way we see the feminists speak such anger and hatred towards men concerning rape, have you ever wondered how a man would react in relation to fear or pain of being raped? And who would rape a man? Why, another man right and that means a gay man because a straight man wouldn't do this... maybe a bisexual man but still, it is a homosexual act.

    Take that knowledge and ask how a woman who hates men might react if forced into closed quarters with him and if she could keep things professional or not take things personal if he accidentally puts his arm around her reaching for something and gets too close for comfort. Then ask if women have been raped in the military... answer there is yes and the military often trys to hush it up right?? Now what if it's a man who gets raped? He's in the military... he's supposed to be macho and strong... then he's overpowered and raped... is he going to tell? And if he does, will anything be done about it risking the media finding out? If a man rapes another man in the military... expect a casualty from friendly fire or the rapist to be soundly beaten by other officers if they learn about it.

    Gay men have every right to serve as a straight man. But before addressing this as homophobia alone... please consider that the underlying phobia may not be that their fellow officer is gay, it may be the same as any woman who fears being raped. Don't oversimplify it as gay bashing or homophobia as these men are standing together just like feminists do towards men...

    As for Neo Nazi's. If they want to kill maim and destroy... if that's your objective, then who better to send in as shock troops because you know they'll have no problem doing that.
    (more)
  • +1 raves
    Peggy June 17, 2009 03:07:41
    Peggy

    Allowing Neo-Nazi's/Gang Members in the Military is worse because...

    The neo-nazi already have their own army. Scary huh?
  • +2 raves
    Jon Bergen June 16, 2009 23:22:52
    Jon Bergen

    Allowing Neo-Nazi's/Gang Members in the Military is worse because...

    To be serious just for a second, the military is about being part of a team with a mission, where you give unflinching support for the other members of your team. And expect the same in return.

    So who would I rather have beside me, armed and dangerous, in whom I'd have to place my trust?

    Wow, that was easy! :D

    unflinching support members team expect return armed dangerous trust wow
  • +6 raves
    Missy A.K.A. Mel Rod June 16, 2009 21:04:51
    Missy A.K.A. Mel Rod

    Allowing Neo-Nazi's/Gang Members in the Military is worse because...

    Neo-nazis could end up killing our own troops because of their race, religion, political views, or whatever stupid reason they have for hating people.
  • Nate Missy A... November 10, 2009 19:28:54
    Nate
    like Muslims
  • +1 raves
    Missy A... Nate November 10, 2009 21:24:52
    Missy A.K.A. Mel Rod
    One asshole does it so that means all of them will right? *eye roll*
  • Nate Missy A... November 10, 2009 21:26:57
    Nate
    no, they've been at it for 30 years. We may not be at war with Islam, but does anyone doubt that Islam has been at war with us for thirty years?
  • +1 raves
    purpleicecreamvan<3 June 16, 2009 16:44:00
    purpleicecreamvan<3

    Neither should be allowed in...

    because war is bad.
  • bookwor... purplei... July 17, 2009 15:21:55
    bookwormtammy
    Why?
  • +2 raves
    purplei... bookwor... July 22, 2009 17:38:56
    purpleicecreamvan<3
    because it ends lives, and it destroys loads of things and it costs loads of money that could be spent on better things.
  • bookwor... purplei... July 22, 2009 17:52:51
    bookwormtammy
    I do not disagree with you that our time and money could be better spent. But those lives would have ended anyway, those things would not have lasted forever, and money isn't everything.

    I do have a point. We as a species like to fight. I think it is absolutly necesary for our existance. Without war we would have no peace. Hah! I abhore some of the stupid reasons we do this for sometimes, but I honestly don't think we would make it long living in peace. Damn shame to.
  • +1 raves
    purplei... bookwor... July 23, 2009 10:31:43
    purpleicecreamvan<3
    so what you're saying is, we might as well end lives early, because they're gonna end anyway. so we might as well all just kill ourselves and not bother with life. that's stupid. have you ever thought that those people who die in the war, both soldiers and innocent civilians( some of which are children) might have had a life ahead of them?
    we as a species are intelligent enough to sort things out without fighting, we're just too selfish to do so.
  • bookwor... purplei... July 23, 2009 14:37:04
    bookwormtammy
    Goodness me no! Although I can see why you would think that. No, it isn't the end that matters it is the journey. And I agree that war is not the best thing that we do. But I have really thought about this. Alot actually. My conclusion is that we seem to need it. Conflict that is. I really wish that we could put our energies and intelligence to better use. But history proves that we don't want to as a species. Even Davinci spent quite alot of time inventing war machines. I don't know that any of them actually came to be used in war, but still he was one of our greatest minds and this was something he spent his time doing.
  • +1 raves
    purplei... bookwor... July 23, 2009 16:22:13
    purpleicecreamvan<3
    well maybe he didn't use his great mind for the greatest things, then.
    "the biggest tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst".
    it shouldn't happen. war, i mean. it's awful, no matter what you say you cannot say it is a good thing. we don't need it, the only reason it happens is because a small handful of people who happen to be in power can't negotiate things like adults and sort it out without resorting to violence. maybe women should have more power, we are less agressive.
    ps- the quote in speach marks isn't mine. i read it on a poster, but it's still really true. :)
or
Cancel