Lance, I totally respect your religious belief - however, I accept homosexuality is a part of todays society. At the end of the day they are human beings who can make a valuable contribution to society - so why castigate them. And in terms of religious/philosophical acceptance, I do so as I do not belief in the word of God.Lance wrote:KlinkKlank, You have heard the views as to why we do not accept Homosexuality, on the principle that it is against the Law of God.
Can I ask why you feel the need to defend the act of homosexuality? What justification do you believe they posess?
Let me clarify again that I have absolutley no objection to homosexuals. It is just their perverted acts that I object to.
Share This Page:
Weeks headlines: Blair is Chavscum + RAF gay pride
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
Psalms 53:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."TJD wrote: I do so as I do not belief in the word of God.
I agree that homosexuals are part of todays society. Do I accept that it is right? Not for a second. I believe EVERYONE can make a valuable contribution to society -even Homosexuals.I accept homosexuality is a part of todays society. At the end of the day they are human beings who can make a valuable contribution to society.
I am not castigating anyone. I have said in previous posts we must accept everyone, as each and everyone of them is God's creation. What we do not have to accept is these people putting their dicks up other blokes arses. That is wrong.so why castigate them.
Last edited by Lance on Mon 30 Aug, 2004 6:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction."
Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins
Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins
-
Frank S.
- Guest
Just an opinion: I don't believe anyone can predict human behavior accurately under the conditions of stress encountered in the military.
I'm not talking about the pilot flying his Tornado or F-16, though I'll get to that, I'm talking about troops on the ground.
You don't have to be shot at to experience stress: you can carry out combat duties away from hostile fire and still experience stress from mission demands and your leadership. From environmental conditions (heat, cold, bad weather). You can experience stress brought on by doubt about the mission you are tasked to accomplish.
At times, stress actually suppresses anxiety and arousal but most of the time it exhalts it.
That is when you can see someone flip and either give in to bloodlust and maybe sadism or fold into a catatonic-like state.
Presumably, gays in the military experience stress well before that point, simply by striving to function in the group while concealing a crucial part of their nature. With the added pressure of deployment, be it in a rear zone (no pun intended) or the front, who can predict how they will react over time?
I've said before there is no absolute when it comes to human affairs: some would perform as expected or better regardless of sexual preference. But it would be misguided to take the chance just for those few.
The main reason gays and other minorities experience freedoms and safety in our democracy can be traced back directly to the military defending democratic ideals (but not apply them: nobody runs for election as Sergeant or Captain, thank fark for that), at great price. It's therefore normal that some gays would choose to serve.
But, on those occasions when we revert to the primal part of the brain and training to make the most basic decisions: move, don't move, speak, don't speak, can we really TRUST the person whose brain's wired differently (don't read this as a put down)?
I would not.
Nothing to do with God's law, with shower fears or the like. Shared experience is not that good a predictor of behavior in conditions encountered in military life and strife. You also need a common psychological make up, and even that, though better, is not fool proof (again, no absolutes).
You might argue this might be true of ground troops, but what of pilots, boat drivers, radar operators, etc? Why not allow homosexuals to prove themselves in those occupations?
Because at war everyone will experience stressors which will force an adaptation in behavior.
This doesn't mean straight people don't 'break': it means than when they do, the common psychological make up I talked about also gives them a better chance to recover.
There are some doors which shouldn't be opened: allowing gays in 'non-combat' roles will only facilitate the push to allow them into combat roles, and that's not something anyone in their right mind should wish for lightly or based on social agenda.
I'm not talking about the pilot flying his Tornado or F-16, though I'll get to that, I'm talking about troops on the ground.
You don't have to be shot at to experience stress: you can carry out combat duties away from hostile fire and still experience stress from mission demands and your leadership. From environmental conditions (heat, cold, bad weather). You can experience stress brought on by doubt about the mission you are tasked to accomplish.
At times, stress actually suppresses anxiety and arousal but most of the time it exhalts it.
That is when you can see someone flip and either give in to bloodlust and maybe sadism or fold into a catatonic-like state.
Presumably, gays in the military experience stress well before that point, simply by striving to function in the group while concealing a crucial part of their nature. With the added pressure of deployment, be it in a rear zone (no pun intended) or the front, who can predict how they will react over time?
I've said before there is no absolute when it comes to human affairs: some would perform as expected or better regardless of sexual preference. But it would be misguided to take the chance just for those few.
The main reason gays and other minorities experience freedoms and safety in our democracy can be traced back directly to the military defending democratic ideals (but not apply them: nobody runs for election as Sergeant or Captain, thank fark for that), at great price. It's therefore normal that some gays would choose to serve.
But, on those occasions when we revert to the primal part of the brain and training to make the most basic decisions: move, don't move, speak, don't speak, can we really TRUST the person whose brain's wired differently (don't read this as a put down)?
I would not.
Nothing to do with God's law, with shower fears or the like. Shared experience is not that good a predictor of behavior in conditions encountered in military life and strife. You also need a common psychological make up, and even that, though better, is not fool proof (again, no absolutes).
You might argue this might be true of ground troops, but what of pilots, boat drivers, radar operators, etc? Why not allow homosexuals to prove themselves in those occupations?
Because at war everyone will experience stressors which will force an adaptation in behavior.
This doesn't mean straight people don't 'break': it means than when they do, the common psychological make up I talked about also gives them a better chance to recover.
There are some doors which shouldn't be opened: allowing gays in 'non-combat' roles will only facilitate the push to allow them into combat roles, and that's not something anyone in their right mind should wish for lightly or based on social agenda.
Surely there have always been homosexuals in all three of the armed forces albeit they kept themselves to themselves. I know that forty years ago when I was on an aircraft carrier it was common knowledge that the Chief Writer was gay. He was even seen ashore in a night club in Rio de Janerio dressed as a female!! I have no doubt that that wasn't an isolated case and people on this forum could add to the list.
Wully
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
"He's gotta be... so ma-cho...
He's gotta be so ma-cho
He's gotta be big an' strong,
Enough to turn me on..."
White bread is evil. White pasta is evil. White rice is evil and white men are evil....but only the hetero ones!
Come on... I don't have a problem with gays. I've known gays before that haven't irritated me. I once knew one who I thought was a decent enough lad. In the armed forces, gays who ACT gay would probably be bullied, and would lower morale in any case. It's a fact of life that a lot of squaddies dislike gays. Say what you like, but it's true. put one or two in a section and the section breaks down. IT WOULDN'T WORK.
Wully, yes I know another example. A lad in my section when I was training at Glencorse. Didn't SAY he was gay but was quite camp. People constantly took the p**s and he handed in his DAOR request after a few weeks. Due to the p**s taking he hated everyone and showed it. So they hated him back. If he had stuck at it and gone to his battalion, I could imagine there would be friction.
Causing these kind of problems within our forces just to be PC is an example of how f***ed up our society is getting. The gay pride float idea is ridiculous. And the MOD saying it wants a certain percentage of recruits to be gay is what i CALL discrimination. So they would turn away heterosexuals if they didn't have enough new gay recruits that year? What kind of point are they trying to prove? Tw*ts.
He's gotta be so ma-cho
He's gotta be big an' strong,
Enough to turn me on..."
White bread is evil. White pasta is evil. White rice is evil and white men are evil....but only the hetero ones!
Come on... I don't have a problem with gays. I've known gays before that haven't irritated me. I once knew one who I thought was a decent enough lad. In the armed forces, gays who ACT gay would probably be bullied, and would lower morale in any case. It's a fact of life that a lot of squaddies dislike gays. Say what you like, but it's true. put one or two in a section and the section breaks down. IT WOULDN'T WORK.
Wully, yes I know another example. A lad in my section when I was training at Glencorse. Didn't SAY he was gay but was quite camp. People constantly took the p**s and he handed in his DAOR request after a few weeks. Due to the p**s taking he hated everyone and showed it. So they hated him back. If he had stuck at it and gone to his battalion, I could imagine there would be friction.
Causing these kind of problems within our forces just to be PC is an example of how f***ed up our society is getting. The gay pride float idea is ridiculous. And the MOD saying it wants a certain percentage of recruits to be gay is what i CALL discrimination. So they would turn away heterosexuals if they didn't have enough new gay recruits that year? What kind of point are they trying to prove? Tw*ts.
"Some day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets..."
