Give me a break!

Nov 2005
Petty theft will occur as long as there is inequality.
Perhaps we should work to make sure all people have equal incomes?

Your approach is like blaming the victim to placate to the attacker.
The person at fault is the attacker. Not the victim.
I said LIKE blaming the victim...

You insist on restricting the capabilities of potential victims while virtually ignoring the situation of the potential attackers.
Nov 2005
Why allow a system that allows for victims or attackers?
To answer your question, let me ask you a question whereby you yourself can (most likely) answer your own question more efficiently...
Do you support Gun Control?
If no, then why do you support a system that allows for victims and attackers?

The military should not be used as a laboratory for social PC engineering.
Demanding to exclude certain groups from the military is the actual social engineering. :rolleyes:
Proclaiming that a group like gays can serve despite your prejudice is not "social engineering".

The purpose of allowing gays and women to serve involves letting those people who can do the job actually do that job.
The reasoning behind you wanting to exclude people is a stupid "social engineering" experiment to try to reduce something which is already lower in the military than in the civilian world in the first place.
Sep 2015
Stage Left
It is a distraction. All one has to do is watch a good looking female walk down the street and watch the slew of traffic accidents that line the road.

As to how much of a distraction, that varies.

Are men pigs? Well...........let's just say that their sexual urges and high levels of testosterone does brain damage.
that last part i highlighted is the ONLY intelligent thing you have ever posted in DTT.


about time.....
Dec 2013
Beware of watermelons
The same biological traits that make young men good soldiers also hardwired their hyper sex drive. Along w/ this is the instinct to protect women and children. This being said i think it unwise to mix the sexes on the front lines or in theater. Give them their own platoons or whatever. As for the gays, thats just a silly argument that i have never understood. What would make ones sexual orientation a positive or negative factor in their ability to perform. I mean there is the stereotypical Hollywood "gay man" like jack from will and Grace but seriously is that guy going to the marines? And that is only a fragment of they population. Most gays i know would not fit in one specific box or another. We have to remember that that stereotype is what many people think of when they think of "gay" blame Hollywood, the parades and ignorance.

As for the trannies it comes down to medical liabilities. Do they want the state to pay for their cosmetic surgeries? their drugs? Do they "need" to be on some sort of drug regiment to maintain a "normal" life. If any of this is the case then they are an unnecessary risk and cost. It is purely pragmatic.
Dec 2016
As a gay man who has served in the military, the claims of how bad gays are for the military habitually come from people who have never even thought of serving...

This is an amusing comment as "war-time" is typically when the military has reduced the enforcement of kicking gays out of the military...
Compare Table 1 statistics to the time-frame of Iraq War #1 and #2...

Moreover, research and modern activity prove that your claim of "distractions" is exaggerated b.s.
Gays in the Military
Studies Show Openly Gay Military Has No Negative Impact, Here or in Israel - Williams Institute

What does this have to do with gays in the military?

Let me rephrase that for you...
There is simply no reason to make the jobs of gay men and women in the military harder in this way, because their lives are on the line as well as those that they are defending, like yourself.
Moreover, there is no demonstration of how gays make the military job harder.
And that objection to gays and women in the military (distractions) comes from the latest Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris clone on this forum here who's all about logic!

But, my problem with taking the debate down the road where it's argued out between Rachel Maddow and ....someone like former Marine Gen. Peter Pace...or any others with stars on their shoulders who didn't even accept "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", is that all through the whole buildup in military forces-- Iraq War and other proxy wars spun off from Iraq, the 'debate' was never expanded to scrutinize the other aspects of using military force and wars as opening foreign policy moves by the United States! Same shit has been happening since the ERA ratification debate in the 70's, when the question of "what about drafting women and draft registration? And that was at a time immediately after Vietnam was finally winding down and no one was being drafted anymore!

Policymakers and their strategists realized correctly that liberals are basically selfish and self-absorbed chickenshits, who may do some 'virtue signalling' as we call it today, but will only be anti-war when there's a chance that their skin is in the game! Not much different than their attitudes about poverty, inequality and other issues that affect more and more people in lower economic demographics: "I'll throw a few coins in the pot, but I'm not doing anything that threatens my lifestyle!"

So, for a long time now, most Americans haven't had "skin in the game"....whether liberal or conservative, male or female, gay or straight. The the Iraq Occupation, were being fought with what one of the few journalists to study soldiers and their lives called "The Other One Percent." A small slice of the population who mostly viewed the military as the last chance for education and career advancement...a group that was mostly rural and easy for MSM to ignore.

Today, the multiplying numbers of smaller, undeclared and mostly unmentioned wars, are more and more fought with high tech robot weapons and mercenary armies that don't even directly answer to what little political oversight Congress does anymore! And this explains most of the reason why first -- Obama, and now Trump are using military force as foreign policy...only stopping long enough to wage economic warfare (sanctions, asset seizures) first, before starting to bombing campaign and/or sending in the hired mercenaries who destroy the target...but usually make it safe for oil and mining companies to function!

So, before answering questions about whether women or gays have any deleterious effects on military forces, let's see some questions about the morality and wisdom of using military force as the stick to threaten any adversaries who aren't complying fully with economic demands placed upon them.
Likes: imaginethat
Apr 2013
La La Land North
Is a young man's desire to protect women and children an instinct or is it societally driven?