should all homos get booted?

#1
Now before anyone says ..closet case, your worried about your own sexuality etc.. just hold your horses..
I dont like em full stop. i dont like lesbians either, they are all freaks as far as i am concerned.
Now, once upon a time it was not allowed, so why the big turnaround, i recon the girls should give all the rug munchers a hiding and the mincers should be beaten at least once a week...
what do you think?
live and let live?
or
give the little mincers a good kicking?
 
#6
I don't think you are a fool. But then, what's my own humble opinion against thousands of others?
 
#8
oh, and before anyone else gets round to it "you're only gay if you push back"
so come round and I'll give you a good spanking with my stick :p
 
#12
I'm going to try and inject a serious question into this pointless thread......

Soldiers (especially teeth arm) are expected to exhibit some decent aggression (at the right times) Am I not correct in stating that aggression comes from levels of testosterone and am I right to suggest that your "light in his loafers" homosexual is lacking in this hormone somewhat.
I know a number of beefers and non of them would say BOO to a goose, they may bitch and slag but fighting is definitely not on their radars.
Likewise Birds lack the testosterone and aggression (generally) to be frontline soldiers

I have no stats or references for this but I'm sure its generally expected that high testosterone = decent levels of aggresion

Psychologists/Psychiatrist out there tell me I'm wrong please
toodlepip
TheGimp
 
#13
Honesty used to be a pre-requisite for promotion, not so these days.
 
#14
thegimp said:
I'm going to try and inject a serious question into this pointless thread......

Soldiers (especially teeth arm) are expected to exhibit some decent aggression (at the right times) Am I not correct in stating that aggression comes from levels of testosterone and am I right to suggest that your "light in his loafers" homosexual is lacking in this hormone somewhat.
I know a number of beefers and non of them would say BOO to a goose, they may bitch and slag but fighting is definitely not on their radars.
Likewise Birds lack the testosterone and aggression (generally) to be frontline soldiers

I have no stats or references for this but I'm sure its generally expected that high testosterone = decent levels of aggresion

Psychologists/Psychiatrist out there tell me I'm wrong please
toodlepip
TheGimp
Take a look at "On Killing" by Lt Col Dave Grossman (ex-US Ranger Offr- commissioned from the ranks- graduate of the British Army Staff College and Psychology Professor at West Point). His conclusions are that the overwhelming majority of humans are loath to kill. The approximately 2% that are not and can kill easily, tend to be those that have a predisposition towards psychopathy. In WWII only 15-20 of combat troops would fire at the enemy- today the figure is close to 100%.

What makes modern soldiers so effective is the way in which they are conditioned (trained) to overcome their natural instincts. Grossman's conclusion is that you can train almost anyone to kill. (The problem is now what happens to the human mind after the fact.)

Copey, you're overcompensating for something...
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#16
I don't like homosexuality, I don't like liver either. As long as I don't have to eat liver or be sodomised etc then I say live and let live.

I think bullying - which is what the original poster was suggesting - is far more destructive to unit cohesion than the sexual orientation of people in the unit.

Its also stupid to suggest that because some one is queer that they lack agression. Some do some don't, just like normal people.
 
#18
The only problem that might occur with having gays serving is one of harrasement.

Think of it this way.

If you as the hetrosexual tiger that you are were permitted to shower with females soldiers (non munters of course) then you would spend more time looking than washing.

If a homosexual male is showering with the rest of the guys then why wouldn't he spend most of his time looking instead of washing?

Now in the case of point one you could find yourself in trouble on a sexual harrasement charge.
Is it likely that the same will be true of case two, or would the gay find himself getting a good kicking?
 
#19
#20
It may be bollox, but I beleive Alexander the Great was in favour of homosexuals in the Army he felt that no-one would want to be seen a coward in front of his lover.....I seem to recall he was moderately successful.....and allegedly gay...I think he had more than enough testosterone.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R The Intelligence Cell 46
wm1965 The NAAFI Bar 212
Bravo_Bravo The NAAFI Bar 15

Similar threads

Top